"Everybody knows how the World War One started. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 by Gavrilo Princip, one of several young fanatics involved in the plot."
And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination. No one would have tried to assassinate Austrian government officials in Bosnia if Austria didn't occupy Bosnia at that time.
The article also doesn't mention that WW1 practically started way earlier and would probably happen even without annexation of Bosnia and assassination of Archduke which was just casus belli.
What worries me is that today it all looks very similar. Heck, even in Bosnia there is a guy from Austria with absolute power. Then we have crisis in Africa and some countries trying to assert themselves as powers.
There is one significant difference between then and now: The world powers wanted a war back then. Emperor Wilhelm II's push for a 'small war' between Austria and Serbia was just the sign of how things were. But Austria's hesitation to act, allowed France and Russia to 'mobilise' their positions.
Imagine if Austria had attacked Serbia straight away? Then perhaps it would not have escalated to a great war.
Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.
That is arguable. Austria certainly wanted war with Serbia, but a world war? Absolutely not. Germany certainly didn't want a war, but in the event that war was coming, they were more or less forced to mobilize.
In fact, if you read the writings of the day, there were a lot of people saying that globalization (they didn't call it that) made a world war was impossible, because it was in no one's economic interest. Basically, all of the arguments that people use today to explain why war between the United States and China is impossible -- people used back back then.
> A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars.
I apologise, I wasn't clear. I meant that they wanted a war at the scale of the Franco-Prussian War. You are not wrong about the writings of the time, and indeed, the powers themselves believed that the mere threat of such a war would prevent the war from ever actually happening, but the concessions made without firing a weapon.
Imagine, a peace treaty without the actual war. This explains why Germany was trying to woe France out of going to war by suggesting that Germany would occupy some French bordering territory. Today, that would seem completely unreasonable for France to accept. But the thinking was that the economic interests between France and Germany was too important for France, that they would accept such a proposal.
As for the war between Austria and Serbia, it was actually Germany that pressed Austria for the war. At first, Austria was extremely hesitant. And even after the ultimatum was sent, Austria continued to hesitate. The lack of decisive action is what allowed France and Russia to position themselves clearly in the conflict. So much that Germany was beginning to regrets its decision to promise Austria its full support in a war.
And also why Germany decided to attack France and Russia first.
The idea was that a quick decisive war would solve the power imbalance in Europe. The war sort of did that. But it certainly was not quick and decisive. And come to think of it, it didn't actually solve the power imbalance in Europe.
A very interesting point. I wonder what was the flaw in the reasoning. It certainly seems unlikely that a major war would occur between the US and China. I believe this today: that it would just be so incredibly bad for business that it's an unlikely practical outcome.
Has the nature of international relations changed, or have we just gotten lucky? Certainly I think the international (and many-national) perspective on human rights and the rights of persons has evolved since then. A draft of soldiers would be perceived quite extremely in the modern day, and would face staunch and inexorable political pressure except in the face of something like total war. Furthermore, globalization has increased substantially since then. A total war with a breakdown of international trade could quickly result in famine in many areas of the world.
It seems more likely that modern warfare will occur through complex and subtle means like economic and financial sabotage (like the measures that have been used against Iran). Arguably this is going on between the US and China in some ways today, with the weakening of China's stock market, the recent US bans on Chinese products, and requirements imposed on foreign companies by China. However, to all the degree that they're add odds with each other, I fundamentally get the impression that US and China are too rational and self-interested to reach armed conflict with each other.
It's also interesting to consider how culture may have shifted over time. 60 years ago, the population might have had one particular perception about going to war with "the japs" (and Asian ethnic slurs). In the modern day, demonizing Asia feels somehow dated, and it's popular to demonize the Arab world instead. I don't know if this is underlying truth or just media spin, but even though there are significant ideological differences in some way (e.g., freedom of speech), it doesn't seem like USA or other conventionally western countries are somehow "at odds with" Asia, even though from a financial perspective that's far more the case than most parts of the world that area in the media a lot more. I suppose it relates to people chanting "death to the USA" and exploding bombs and things like that. Perhaps also it relates to the fact that there's been far less imperialism from the USA directed toward China and similar territories than toward other areas of the world. Who knows.
Wikipedia has something interesting to say about this: "The partnership between China and the United States, where each nation regards each other as a potential adversary as well as a strategic partner, has been described by world leaders and academicians as the world's most important bilateral relationship of the century. As of 2014, the United States has the world's largest economy and China the second largest. [...] China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States,[4] holding about 10% ($1.8 trillion) of the U.S. national debt."
"China–United States relations have generally been stable with some periods of open conflict, most notably during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries" - so, the things that we have a stake in are unlikely to lead us to war. The USA is not going to go to war with China over its civil rights issues.
"The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. At the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2014, both countries confirmed that they wanted to improve their relationship. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States did not seek to contain China,[5] while Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that a confrontation between the two countries would be a disaster." - also unlikely to lead to war. It helps that both countries are essentially atheist states.
The most likely way that USA and China get drawn into war is through some kind of proxy situation with allies that they get drawn into. However, they are so much more powerful than their allied nations that I suspect each party enforces detente. All of this said, it seems plausible that there are tensions brewing on the horizon, with China having 1.3 billion people and USA 320 million. Human capital is an extremely valuable resource. Perhaps we are just fortunate to be in a calm period of history during recent times.
The difference is nuclear weapons. The us civil war/world war 1 model of total war is grinding down your enemy's economy into dust by killing soldiers in the field.
The post 1945 version of this is fighting by proxy, and scoping the fight with the escalation to nuclear annhiliation. Japan would have fought to a stalemate... Atomic weapons changed the rules of the game.
Human capital is valuable, but clearly not everything about it is encapsulated in pure population numbers. The Soviet Union was far more populous than the US, for example.
It might also do to compare spheres rather than the US and China individually.
Sorry I made the point too quickly. Humans are literally cannon fodder for nations in this type of war. Value is close to zero.
The thing that matters most is producing enough stuff to keep society held together and continue to supply weapons and other material to support the war effort. When nations approach the breaking point pre-nuclear weapons (ie. Soviet Union in 1942/3), they give you a hat, dump you off the back of a truck and suggest that you scavenge a gun. That isn't an option with industrial states post 1945.
> Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war.
And I'm glad this is the case. A war between any of the great powers could potentially have catastrophic consequences for almost everyone.
> Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.
Maybe this seemed like a acceptable strategy back in the 90ties, but today we see it backfiring on everyone.
Refugees flooding the EU causing EU members to block each other which in turn threatens the EU itself, radicalised Muslims threatening the territorial integrity of China, North Korea going nuts, possibly a bloody civil war awaiting Turkey.
My point is that you can gang up and beat on weak players only for so long until the masses radicalise and become a major threat to your own existence.
I agree. I apologise if my phrasing implied approval of this strategy, that was not my intent.
Our current leader suffer the same weakness as our past leaders: Failure to foresee the consequences of their preferred (and tested) strategies in new environments.
The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. And it looked like it might almost have been that, had it not been for some strategic blunders by German HQ. Blunders that were sparked by conservative ideas and classic defence strategy.
When the war became entrenched, no side truly knew how to advance. They knew how to defend their position (machine guns), but not how to take the other's positions. That first really changed with the introduction of the tank. But that arrived too late to partake in many battles in that war. The Second World War proved its usefulness to its fullest.
Traditional geopolitical, strategic thinking and military schools turned the First World War into a far bloodier than it could have been. New technology, new warfare tactics among other things have changed they dynamic for war.
Today, new ideologies, again new warfare tactics (think urban warfare), new opponents (not nation states anymore) among other things are again changing the dynamic.
When the First World War ended, the solution to it was the same as always; war reparation without considerations to their consequences. The same thing is happening today; old strategy and military schools are being applied to conflicts to which they do not apply.
It might be because our current leaders are politicians first, and need to secure their popularity among voters. Moreso than our past leaders. But it might also just be history repeating itself. In a way.
> The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war.
About 2M refugees in 2015 (highest number I could find) into a population of ~508M isn't "flooding". For comparison, there seems to have been just over 5M "live births" in 2014[3].
What would be the number you'd consider "flooding"? As soon the significant instability is introduced, it's too much. It depends on the effects, not on the numbers alone.
Good question and I couldn't tell you offhand - but I will stand by my disagreement with "+0.4% from migration is flooding" when "+0.9% from births" isn't.
Babies don't often bring foreign cultural norms and overwhelm social services. Which is why one might be flooded with migrants, but not babies, though there be more babies. It's why rain might cause flooding but not snow. The snow may cause a flood later, but not now.
This is true, but consider the number of births attributable to refugees and other recent immigrants, and consider what kind of cohorts are coming in, and where - the entire EU isn't receiving an even distribution of immigrants.
Mohammed is the most popular baby name in London. The young-adult-male cohort in Germany will soon be dominated by peoples of Middle Eastern origin - most Germans are old, and immigrants are largely young and male. In countries like Sweden, fully 20% of the population is foreign-born or born to foreign-born parents. Cultural change is definitely coming to the EU one way or another. For hundreds of years, until around the 60s, most European countries allowed virtually no non-European immigration. Given the birthrates of native Europeans, we're talking about total demographic replacement in a few generations in many countries. I find it hard to believe that's not going to cause some instability in the short to medium term.
I am surprised you mention Africa as a potential flash point. Can you be more specific? I would have thought the middle east and the Korean peninsula would be top candidates for globalized conflict. Most of the crisis in Africa seem to be very local in scope in comparison.
The world in general seems to be on the brink, and the attitudes of governments in particular seems to echo the attitudes that existed prior to WWI. They're playing a dangerous game, and the rest of us pay the cost.
> And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation)
Because it isn't relevant to the narrative in this case. It's not an attempt to justify or even explain the circumstances of WWI, it's a story about a story which triggered those events (which would probably have happened anyway). He is careful to say "started" WWI, not "caused".
While Bosnia was definitely occupied by Austria, it should be noted that the assassins were Serbian nationalists. This makes sense, though, because Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia (Austrian held or not).
As the Second Balkans War proved, the Balkan states and peoples weren't exactly the best of friends.
The assassination was not purely against Austrian oppression. Ending Austrian occupation was basically a means to an end; if Serbia were to control Bosnia, Bosnia could not be part of Austria.
You are not wrong, there would be no need to assassinate Ferdinand had Bosnia not been Austrian held. But had Bosnia not been under Austrian control, it would just have given Serbia a larger opening for an occupation of Bosnia and possibly a third Balkans War.
The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant.
And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908:
"For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]"
Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!)
It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war.
Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."
Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary.
I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal.
But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars.
The Balkan wars you mention are exactly the reason why Austria prepared and wanted the war against Serbia: they estimated it would be a fast win, as Serbia's resources must have been drained in these wars.
They somewhat miscalculated how the other countries would react and the World War ensued:
No, Germany's actions actually make pretty good sense.
Remember that the Archduke was shot in June. A month before Austria-Hungary declared war. In this hesitation, France tried to heavily influence the United Kingdom to participate.
The Entente alliance between France and Russia was what the Germans had feared in a war with either power. That if they attacked Russia, France would join, and vice versa. This led to the creation of the Schlieffen Plan. The idea was simple: First subdue France by a huge force and then take Russia.
The thinking was that Russia would take too long to mobilise its troops to be ready, and in the meantime, the Germans could (in 4 weeks according to the plans) force France to surrender. Then the armies could be moved across the continent and be ready for Russia.
Beyond the fact that generals have made changed to the plans since its initial creation in 1905 (such as lessening the imbalance in troop deployment between East and West), the plan also made certain inaccurate implication; particularly regarding Russian mobilisation. Or rather, they did not anticipate the success of the French ambassador to Moscow in convincing the Russians to attack before they were ready (which cost them an entire army), but still forced the Germans to redraw two entire corps from the Western front to the Eastern front.
Germany tried to telegram France and Russia whether they would participate. Russia's mobilisation was a confirmation of the fact, while France simply replied 'France will do what is in her best interests'. Germany took that as France will come to Russia's aid. Which also makes sense, because France was really hoping to undo the damage of 1870 and win back Alsace-Lorraine.
The United Kingdom was at first incredibly reluctant to get involved in a war on the continent. But France insisted that if Germany violates Belgian neutrality (which they did on 3 August), it would be a direct violation of the 1830 London Conference regarding Belgian neutrality.
Germany thought the British would not be foolish enough to go to war over 'a piece of paper' as the German Foreign Minister told the British ambassador when he delivered the declaration of war.
And all because Germany had promised Austria-Hungary they would come to their aid in the event of war.
It is not without reasoning that Otto von Bismarck himself was opposed to the annexation of Elsaß-Lothringen, because it would create an unneeded rivalry between Germany and France. Had France not had that interest, France would probably have been far less inclined to participate.
Not a month, it was only 3 days between: 28 July, 1 August. And the war of Austria was against Serbia. But Germany was fully ready to both declare the war on Russia and attack France, in 4 and 5 days (first Luxembourg). No country is so prepared and ready by accident. Germans were obviously waiting for that too.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on 28 June. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. That's a month.
And it's the period between 28 June and 28 July that real negotiations and build up happened.
And yes, Germany was ready. After the second Balkans War, Austria was interested in a war with Serbia. But while Germany supported Austria, Germany insisted that it would not be ready for such a war (anticipating a Russian response) until mid-1914, and responded to Austria (in 1911) to that effect.
> Germany insisted that it would not be ready for such a war (anticipating a Russian response) until mid-1914 and responded to Austria (in 1911) to that effect.
And mid-1914 it was.
> it's the period between 28 June and 28 July that real negotiations and build up happened
And obviously all that buildup on German side was not only that month, but planned and executed for years, per your 1911 reference.
The month was used by the French to convince the British to participate. My point is; had Austria-Hungary acted faster, Britain might have entered the war too late to help the French.
> Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state
This is not correct, after all the countries that were created after WW1 and then again after WW2 were "Yugoslavia", not "Serbia".
In both of these countries ethnic nationalism (be it Serb, Croat or Bosnian) was suppressed by the authorities, even using violence or by putting such opposition behind prison bars.
In the second version of Yugoslavia after WW2 not even ethnic nationalism but even religion has been viciously oppressed as it was the only thing remaining that separated Croats from Serbs and so on.
Also Young Bosnia (the organisation that planned and executed the assassination) did not have a Pan-Serbian state as the goal, but instead a Pan-Slavic state.
Creating a Pan-Serbian state would also have never made any sense, as there is no way to successfully integrate Croats and Bosnians in such an experiment.
A Bosnian Serb once tried to explain to me that the Emperor's decision to have this parade on St. Vitus Day was a deliberate insult so great they had no choice but to respond with violence.
On that day, they commemorate the start of half a millennium of Turkish occupation.
"The Bosnian crisis of 1908–09, also known as the Annexation crisis or the First Balkan Crisis, erupted when on 6 October 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories formally within the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. This unilateral action—timed to coincide with Bulgaria's declaration of independence (5 October) from the Ottoman Empire—sparked protestations from all the Great Powers and Austria-Hungary's Balkan neighbours, Serbia and Montenegro. In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to reflect the fait accompli and bring the crisis to an end."
There is no way you can honestly argue, after reviewing the facts, that Bosnia was NOT annexed by Austria. Btw I am from Austria and here we are taught the same thing in public schools. Austria unilaterally annexed Bosnia. Bosnian nationalists then assassinated crown prince Franz Ferdinand which then was followed by the first World War.
That is why Austrian Empire was torn into pieces after the first World War and why it was deemed the aggressor and had to pay crippling reparations.
The Austro-Hungarian empire was well on its merry way to disintegration before the war. I was recently reading a book about this, A Mad Catastrophe[1], that was very interesting. I hadn't really realized the extent to which the Hapsburgs were challenging the Ottomans for the title of sick man of Europe. Not a good era for polyglot states.
Coming from the United States, we tend to think of WW1 exclusively in terms of the war on the Western Front, with maybe TE Lawrence and Gallipoli thrown in. The Balkan wars of the preceding decades that primed the whole powder keg are almost completely unknown.
"The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination"
I don't know what "just before" means to you, but I don't think "5 years earlier" when I read that. If you mean the troop maneuvers just before the Archduke's visit, it's odd to say Bosnia was "invaded" by simply moving troops in annexed territory, 5 years after it was annexed.
It's just an unnecessarily misleading sentence. Note that I'm not diminishing Princip's or the Black Hand or Serbian nationalists' motives.
Iraq was invaded 13 years ago and I'm willing to take any bet that today there are more Iraqis than ever that would be willing to assassinate a Western governments leader.
Just have a look at all the crazy extremist organisations in that region. (and what they do)
I'm not defending them but I understand why they still hate us after 13 years.
5 years is nothing in that context. When you are oppressed by a foreign power then people there will fight you indefinitely.
I'm sure I'm not the first one here to comment that generations of continuous European conflict, decades of brinkmanship, and many other diverse political factors caused WWI. The book can't be nearly as important as they claim if the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is not the sole cause of the war. If he hadn't been assassinated, it is very likely that the same war would have been ignited for some other arbitrary reason.
It's a decent read. I read it as a child, and cried and felt creeped out at the descriptions of the metal boxes and the train ride(s) etc...
I question the article-authors premise (copycat killing)
and the conventional wisdom that this particular event triggered it all... in anything the article-authors premise shows even more so how the conventional wisdom is silly and easily tipped...
one doesn't have singular causes for WWI
(which more or less leads to WW2 by continuation, due to unresolved issues, war reparations debts forced by an unrealistic treaty of versailles leading to the failure of the weimar republic etc)
so, yeah, the person calling for Gavrilo Princips hanging below= kinda silly... let's keep some perspective folks.
reminds me a lot of what people said about the Turner Diaries and the Oklahoma City bombings. Though I guess the connection is a lot stronger in the former.
A tale baited well past the breaking point, but the best illustrations I've seen on a short piece.
Tl,dr: an obscure tale of hanged nihilists (who had planned murder) was read by a hanged nihilist who managed a successful murder - but "ironically, the man who did the shooting, Gavrilo Princip, could not be executed because, at nineteen, he was under age for this punishment."
(In other news, the propounders of "sic semper tyrannis" disclaimed any responsability, explaining that they mean to murder only tyrants on an officialy approved list, who really deserve it and whose death will have no harmful consequences.)
> Even today, more than a century on, this story will not fail to move new readers, giving many of them strong pause for thought, especially in those parts of the ‘civilised’ world where the barbarous and blundering practice of slaughtering our fellow-citizens is still carried out.
Or, y'know, the just and appropriate practise of executing those who deserve it, because it would be unjust not to. E.g. Gavrilo Princip, the young man indirectly responsible for more deaths than any other human being in history (17 million in WWI; 9 million in the Russian Revolution; 5 million in the Holodomor; 80 million in WWII; 30 million in the Chinese Revolution; plus many, many more) deserved to hang more than perhaps any other man in history, and yet … he didn't.
G Princip was a dumb guy who was used by Serbian military intelligence who were trying to incite violence for their own ends. The chief of Serbian intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević had extensive experience with murdering rulers: he played a key role in the 1903 Serbian coup, where king and queen not merely murdered, but butchered with body parts thrown onto the street. Dimitrijević financed, radicalised and guided G Princip.
Dimitrijević was key part of Serbia’s power structure at the time.
It seems to be the case that the Russian military attaché in Serbia, Viktor Artamonov, financed Dimitrijević plans. Whether St Petersburg knew about this is unclear, but why would Artamonov use his private money to pay for foreign terrorism?
Russian intelligence had been able to read Austro-Hungarian diplomatic ciphers for a while before the war, so it is likely that St. Petersburg was aware of what Vienna’s probable reaction to the assassination would be.
So no, it wasn't just G Princip.
Today organisations like ISIS use dumb and angry youths like G Princip.
So person who assassinated an Archduke from a country that occupied his is - dumb?
Well, that is insult to many freedom fighters and with your logic creating of US is "revolutions of dumb people". For your information (I suggest go read because you obviously didn't) - Austria wanted a war, the assassination was just a good cause for them. The assassination happened in Bosnia (in territory they annexed) but they gave ultimatum to other sovereign state (Serbia) to conclude investigation with their own force on a soil of independent nation - I wonder what would happen if Turkey wanted to send its own investigators to conclude independent investigation of dead Turk in Germany.
For Serbs G.Princip was freedom fighter - Bosnia historically was Serbian land (Raska), most of muslims come from Serbs converted to Islam, and today half of Bosnia is entity called Republic of Srpska - Austria really had no business to be there in first place.
Most countries historically 'belonged' to somebody else.
If the Turkish ruler (rather than a random Turkish citizen) was killed in Germany than clearly Turkish authorities would be invited to help with the investigations. There was a relevant recent event when the plane of the Polish president crashed in Russia [1].
Oh, sure, he doesn't deserve all of the blame. But the brutal murders he perpetrated were the instigating event for almost all of 20th century history. Without WWI there'd have been no WWII, no Communist revolutions, no Cold War, no Korea, no Vietnam, no Holocaust — it's unknowable what an alternate history of the 20th century would look like, because the Great War completely and utterly shattered Western civilisation.
Yeah, he was a tool of others. But he was the one who pulled the trigger: the spark that ignited in the primer of his pistol cartridge is still burning.
You do realize that historians agree that WW1 would happen even if there was no assassination of Archduke? It was just casus belli and not the reason for WW1.
The sparks happened before with two Moroccan crises, German naval buildup, etc. It's much more complex than your simple view.
And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination. No one would have tried to assassinate Austrian government officials in Bosnia if Austria didn't occupy Bosnia at that time.