100 Years Ago Today: World War I Began - July, 28, 1914

by Oubliette 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Quendi

  “World War I set the violent twentieth century in motion. It was the first use of chemical weapons; the first mass bombardment of civilians from the sky; the century’s first genocide.” So begins the 1996 PBS series The Great War and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century. You can watch its episodes on YouTube. I completely agree with that opening statement because the geopolitical problems we are seeing in the twenty-first century can trace their roots to this enormous catastrophe in the first quarter of the twentieth.

  I have called the Great War the forgotten war of the twentieth century. Its horror and ghastliness defy description. Its origins arose from the alliances created by the rival powers in Europe which were crafted by statesmen who convinced themselves that the specter of a huge war would be enough to forestall one. They thought that three of Europe’s monarchs, the King of England, the Kaiser of Germany and the Czar of Russia would never allow that to happen, that their family ties would override the militarism and aggression of their generals.

  The war’s horrendous prosecution and unsatisfactory end were made even worse by the Versailles Peace Conference, a conclave which created the false peace that only allowed the combatants to rearm and proceed to a second conflict which was even more destructive than the first one. World War II merely took up the Great War’s unfinished business. Indeed many historians call both conflicts Europe’s “Second Thirty Years’ War.”

  The First World War led to the birth of the first communist dictatorship. The world flirted with nuclear destruction as that dictatorship engaged in a murderous rivalry with its erstwhile allies. When the USSR finally imploded, some of the splinter states which emerged from its ruins fell to either fighting among themselves or suffering internecine bloodletting. And the problems elsewhere in southwest Asia as well as the Middle East can be traced to hatreds fostered by European colonialism which the Great War only intensified.

  I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. The world we have today had its birth pangs in World War I. It was Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia on 28 July 1914 that caused a myriad of dominoes to fall—and they are continuing to tumble even now.

  Quendi
• 

  kaik

  Why 1914? It could be 1815 with the birth of the modern, industrial Europe, or 1648 which created a system of non-interference in European affairs which lasted till 1940?. Communist dictatorship was already considred by anarchists in the 19th century. WWI ended a system that was established in Europe afer Vienna Congress and paving a way for long century. However, Europe was still in occassional wars like Crimean, Italian Indepence war, Balkan wars, Pruss-Austrian and Franco-Austrian wars. Aerial bombardment were tested in American Civil War from baloons. Chemical warfare existed since Roman and Persian wars where chemical compounds to smoke and kill opponents were used extensively by Persians against invading Roman army. WWI was not only war among imperial families but also involved second most powerful republic after USA, which was France. Italy and Romania stayed out of the conflict and later switched the alliances. WWI only changed world history from one single point, it eliminated European states as the most dominant force on the glove as they were since 1500. Europe for 400 years was the most powerful civilization that world had ever seen until 1914 and there was no state in the world that could defy their military power. This changed in 1918 and definitelly after 1945 when two largely non-european powers (USA as non European, and USSR as non Western) dominated the world for next 45 years.
• 

  Quendi

  The war shattered an entire world order. In 1914, sixty percent of the world's population lived under the rule of kingdoms or empires. Today less than ten percent do so. The only important royal dynasty to survive the war was the House of Windsor and that was not without challenge. The fragmentation of these empires led to the rise of independent states which continues down to this day as the doctrine of "self-determination", promulgated by Wilson at Versailles, continues to govern many movements in our time.

  But what makes the Great War different from its predecessors is that it was the first fought in all four quarters of the globe and by blocs of nations as opposed to just a few. Its carnage also was unmatched in previous world history. Nobody knows how many actually died although estamates range from fourteen to twenty million. Among its aftershocks were the Spanish Flu, the pandemic that killed more people than the war itself, and widespread famine. So to say that the Great War was not much different from earlier ones entirely misses the point, I believe. There are other points that can be raised and I hope our discussion will do so.

  Quendi
• 

  smiddy

  Very funny Caleb , ILMAO , they have got everything else wrong , cant upset their 100% record can we.

  smiddy
• 

  steve2

  With all due respect Quendi, history shows there are a few key "events" besides World War One that have irrevocably altered (ahem) the so-called "world order". Whose order? Love the phrase " World Order" BTW.

  The Black Plague of the 14th Century completely wiped out entire societies

  lead to unprecedented questioning of religious explanations of suffering and, ironically, drove survivors to more desperate forms of religiosity. The world was forever changed. The French Revolution turned that society upside down, forvever changing the core structures of that country. American had its devastating and monumental Civil War - go to any part of the States and be struck by how that War has seared itself on the hearts and minds of Americans - more so that World War One - a war American belatedly joined in 1917.

  There is also a compelling historical view that challenges the notion that World War One was the key event of the 20th Century. The dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945 left the chemical attacks of World War One for dead in its sheer mind-numbing potential for eviscerating entire human populations ( Hiroshima, Nagasaki), to say nothing of the emergence (for the first time ever ) of mutually assured destruction. The efficient, systematic killing of millions of Jews in concentration camps was another history changing event, nprecedented in scale.

  And, more recently, for the people's of Vietnam, the so-called Vietnam War was a damn sight more significant than the 14-18 Great War.

  And we haven't even touched on the 21st Century's frightening fractionation of the terrorist threat.

  We do well to consider that whether an event is viewed as historically significant and "epoch changing" (another over-heated phrase beloved of pigeon- holing historians), depends on vested interests and proximity to key events. Churchill's prime was World War One - little wonder this giant declared World War One to be the most significant event ever in human history. Nothing like "self-promotion".
• 

  Phizzy

  I am a little weary of all the Hoo-Hah over WW 1, but I suppose "it will all be over by Christmas".
• 

  Quendi

  Hi Steve2,

  I'm not arguing that World War I was the most significant event in history--far from that hyperbolic statement. I'm saying it was the watershed event of the twentieth century. The Vietnam War was a subset, coming as it did when the French were finally forced out of Indochina and the U.S. foolishly took their place. The French presence was bitterly resented by the Vietnamese. Ho Chi Minh, who later led the Vietnamese communist resistance, attended the Versailles Conference in 1919 to argue for self-determination for Indochina. He was never given a hearing, receiving only insults for his trouble. He never forgot his humiliation and used it to argue that evidently Wilson's "self-determination" policy did not apply to people of color. Zhou En-lai and W.E.B. DuBois got the same reception in Paris when they presented their cases before the war victors.

  The terrorist organizations of today are the direct descendants of the anarchists and terrorists of the nineteenth century who wanted to destroy the existing order and put a new and fanatical regime in its place. The difference between today's groups and yesteryear's is the scope of their reach and the range of death and destruction they can cause. Otherwise, 1914's Black Hand group which murdered Franz Ferdinand is no different from Al Qaeda. But I do appreciate this discussion and I am looking forward to more discussion.

  Quendi
• 

  kaik

  Quendi, I disagree that WWI was watershed event in the 20th century. Only one battle of WWI is considered as top 25 battles of humanity by military analysts, and this is I. battle of Marne. No other battles of WWI achieved such prominence. WWII was a watershed of the 20th century. For many countries WWI was indirect. No city between Rhine and Carpathian range witnessed a war. War affected four areas of Europe like Belgium and France, Venetia, Balkans, and Baltics to Black sea region. Iberian and Scandinavian penninsulas were not affected by war. USA lost about 40,000 people in the war, much less than in Vietnam war. Political structure on local level survived the war, even in countries like Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. The rulling dynasties were gone, but much of the political, economic, and cultural system survived well until 1945.

  WWI is seen as limit what is called a Long Century. It started with the defeat of Napoleon and establishment of Quadruple alliances, and survived with minor changes until 1914. WWI was also an answer on changed demographic in Europe especially in the Central Europe dominated by Vienna. Austria-Hungary was after Russia the biggest European country and second most populous until 1900 ahead of continental UK and France. At the turn of the century it was replaced by unified Germany. German influence within Austrian monarchy wanned from dominant force around 1850 into minority where only 1/4 of population considered themselves as a German speaker. Disintegration of Austrian monarchy was inevitable and the monarchy only held by strong persona of Franz Joseph who rule the monarchy for 68 years from 1848 till 1916. After his death, there was no any leader that was capable managing this state and by 1918 Germans were afraid of ethnic instability from Bohemia to Balkans as bigger threat than American entrance into war. In 1918 Germans defeated Russia and occupied most of Ukraine, Baltics, and Balkans; Italy was decimated, and they were standing deep in Belgian and French territory. WWI was pretty much stalemate and had not achieved its orginal goal. Germany did not occupy Paris, and French-British alliance did not inflict significant defeat to German's hegemony in Europe. This all happened 25 years later.
• 

  Quendi

  Kaik, thanks for your reply as I'm really enjoying the discussion. It may be that we are "arguing" from opposite ends of the same answer. I like and agree with the point you made about World War I being the end of the Long Peace in Europe, and that is buttressing my contention about it being the watershed event of the twentieth century. The events which followed that war's end would not have occurred if the Great War had not been fought. A war which started on 28 July 1914 saw 3.5 million dead by 25 December. Such a death toll in so short a time span was unprecedented in world and military history. While you mention lands that never saw a shot fired in anger (and there were plenty of neutral countries around the globe, not just in Europe), there were other places far away from Europe which did.

  The entire North Atlantic Ocean was a war zone. Fierce military battles were fought in southern Africa. Naval engagements took place off the coast of Chile while Japan used its military might to drive Germany completely out of the western Pacific Ocean. Nothing like this had ever been seen in human history. Your points about greater military and economic disasters which followed World War I is valid and beyond dispute. I'm only saying that none of them would have happened if the Great War had not preceded them and that is why I believe it to be the watershed event of the twentieth century. Let's keep talking, my friend.

  Quendi
• 

  kaik

  Quendi, thank you for kind answer. I do not want to argue, and I appologize if I sound that way. I would only post my view and point on it. My great-grandfather was an officer of Austrian army and thought in Galicia. We have a pics of him in the charge of calvary from the turn of the century. My paternal grandfather was drafted in 1918 as a teen and sent to Italian frontline and from there to the War of Independence lasting till 1920.

  Austrian monarchy was failing because it did not react on changing demographics. The war only speed up disintegration process that started in 1866. However, it is crucial to say that WWI was waged with modern technology under napoleonic leadership. Most of the men in Austrian military command were in their 80's and witnessed last war in 1866. Austria considered Lombardy and Venetia as own historical land which was lost in 1856-9. Europe in 1914 was ripe for larger war, and the war was already happening in the Balkans among Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, and Albania. These Balkan conflicts were extremely brutal and eventually had spilled out to the rest of the Europe. I would recommend movie Dust from Milcho Manchevski describing this conflict. WWI did not happened in vaccum, the stress among European alliances were there. France in 1914 wanted payback for its defeat in 1870. Russia for Crimean and Japanese wars. Polish population wanted independence. WWI happened in the crossroad of various conflicts. Similar crossroad happened with 30 Years War (religion), 7 Years War (for resources), and Napoleonic Wars. Napoleonic Wars had more important battles shaping the future of the human race than had WWI.