The lamps go out; 100 years ago this month

[Grey Havoc]

The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.
- Sir Edward Grey

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11002644/First-World-War-centenary-how-events-unfolded-on-August-1-1914.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11005779/First-World-War-centenary-how-the-events-of-August-2-1914-unfolded.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11009683/First-World-War-centenary-how-the-events-of-August-3-1914-unfolded.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11006820/WW1-centenary-how-the-events-of-August-4-1914-unfolded.html

 

[yasotay]

The cascade of decisions. Very interesting and un-nerving as I look at the house of cards we live in today.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The cascade of decisions. Very interesting and un-nerving as I look at the house of cards we live in today.

Agreed.


World leaders at WW1 centenary events in UK and Belgium (BBC News)

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11011391/Lights-go-out-as-UK-remembers-WWI.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

The cascade of decisions. Very interesting and un-nerving as I look at the house of cards we live in today.

And we're still putting up the the results of that little tantrum, a century later. It led to three quarters of a century of Soviet Communism, a century of socialism and perhaps worse long-term, the arbitrary way in which the European victors carved up the Middle East has led to a whole host of ongoing exciting events.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And we're still putting up the the results of that little tantrum, a century later. It led to three quarters of a century of Soviet Communism, a century of socialism and perhaps worse long-term, the arbitrary way in which the European victors carved up the Middle East has led to a whole host of ongoing exciting events.

It could have been worse. The Germans could have gotten their way or won the war and Kaiser Wilhelm V would be controlling most of Europe, Asia and Africa in an efficient but brutal totalitarian empire allied to a united Muslim (Arab-Turkish-Persian) extremist super state and an unreformed Japanese Empire in a Cold War with the remains of the British Empire allied to the USA.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It could have been worse. The Germans could have gotten their way or won the war and Kaiser Wilhelm V would be controlling most of Europe, Asia and Africa in an efficient but brutal totalitarian empire allied to a united Muslim (Arab-Turkish-Persian) extremist super state and an unreformed Japanese Empire in a Cold War with the remains of the British Empire allied to the USA.

I dunno. If What's His Face had failed to assassinate Archduke Chocula, and the major powers of Europe had somehow failed to come up with a reason to slaughter each other (NOTE: I never assume that a continent that has spent so long playing around with *both* aristocracy AND socialism will somehow fail to come up with a reason for slaughter), I can't really see how the century since would have been any worse. If the Ottoman Empire hadn't been chopped up, it still would have been a wreck, but it would have been *their* wreck. The Sunnis and the Shiites would have all the same reasons to murder each other, but they wouldn't have westerners in between them. Palestine would still be a minimally populated backwater of no particular interest.

Western oil companies still most likely would have moved in and would be bribing paying the locals to extract the oil; but with minimal annoyance to the local religious nuts.

Without WWI, Lenin probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere; Russia might well have toppled the Czar, but perhaps it would have become a republic. And that not only would have spared dozens of millions of lives in what would have become the USSR, it also would have eliminated support for Mao and the Red Chinese. So China becomes a republic as well. Not really sure about Japan. They were on the Nutty Brick Road before WWI, so they and the US might've wound up tangling anyway.

Interesting to ponder nukes. Without WWI, no WWII, so no Manhattan Project. But atomic reactors for power generation might've moved along as a similar clip. Had the Japanese snagged the oil in the south Pacific, and possibly oil out of the Middle East being more expensive, it is just possible that atomic power would be vastly more common now, while other technologies would be less advanced. We'd have nuclear powered trains and cruise ships and rockets while the height of air travel might be something like the Lockheed Super Constellation. So... not so bad, really.

 

[Triton]

It could have been worse. The Germans could have gotten their way or won the war and Kaiser Wilhelm V would be controlling most of Europe, Asia and Africa in an efficient but brutal totalitarian empire allied to a united Muslim (Arab-Turkish-Persian) extremist super state and an unreformed Japanese Empire in a Cold War with the remains of the British Empire allied to the USA.

Would the Royal Navy have gone back to coal if the British Empire had lost access to the oil fields of Persia through Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC)?

Would the Great War have ended on November 11, 1918 without the "Spanish flu" pandemic of 1918?

Would the Anglo-Japanese Alliance have crumbled as it did in the 1920s?

Would there have been a League of Nations, or similar body, established with victory by the Quadruple Alliance?

Would the German Empire have taken possession of British and French colonies in Africa and Asia?

Would there have been tensions between the German Empire and Japan in the Pacific? Would the High Seas Fleet rule the waves in the Atlantic and Pacific?

 

[Triton]

[I dunno. If What's His Face had failed to assassinate Archduke Chocula, and the major powers of Europe had somehow failed to come up with a reason to slaughter each other (NOTE: I never assume that a continent that has spent so long playing around with *both* aristocracy AND socialism will somehow fail to come up with a reason for slaughter), I can't really see how the century since would have been any worse.

If the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg,
had not occurred, I believe that another crisis would have served as a catalyst for the Great War. There was an arms race on the continent, the Anglo-German naval arms race, Russian interests in the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, and Germany's desire to be a power outside of continental Europe. Tensions were ratcheting up for decades The British Empire and the German Empire were expecting a clash between the Grand Fleet and the High Seas Fleet. The question was not if, but when, such as clash would occur.

 

[CJGibson]

Rob Newman, British comedian and writer, claims that the building of the Berlin-Baghdad railway was the real catalyst for WWI, leading to a British invasion of Iraq to prevent Germany getting an oil supply.

See here, from 9 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0

Certainly a different view

Chris

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Berlin to Baghdad train line was part of the wider reasons for WWI, certainly more reason than the killing of FF which was a spark not a cause. In the days before free trade and globalisation access to markets required sovereign control or rare sovereign partnerships. Germany and Russia were both rising economies and rising powers of this time. Russia had its own Empire to access resources and to sell products too. Germany had no such empire. Established powers like Britain, France and the USA had their own Empires and/or frontiers. The German solution was a general plan to turn the Ottoman Empire, Persia area into its new market for resources and product sales. Russia and to a lesser extant Britain saw this as a territorial threat to their Empires. This was creating a lot of tension combined with the naval arms race in Europe and the high levels of nationalist jingoism of the time.


If there had been no war the German plan was to use the Ottoman Empire to fuel massive growth in their economic and military power. Which would overawe France and if Russia could not match this growth, them as well. Russia was massively growing in the early 20th century but did not match the Germans for stability and efficiency and might have been left well behind in the growth race. The UK did not have the kind of government to make the reductions in standards of living to keep pace with the German military growth. By the 1930s Germany might be the predominate global military superpower that was locked out of most of the world's economic markets. They could then deploy this strength to threaten or take control over territory of the other powers in the Americas, Africa and Asia.


Hitler was not some aberration in the German way of doing things before WWII. But rather a quite normal manifestation of the German right. The totalitarian German imperial state as the global world power is not a pretty picture.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hitler was not some aberration in the German way of doing things before WWII. But rather a quite normal manifestation of the German right. The totalitarian German imperial state as the global world power is not a pretty picture.

A thousand times this. Despite the socialist recasting of WW1 (especially prevalent in the British education system to this day) as some aberration directly consequent of capitalism and aristocracy the reality is that the root cause was a Germany with expansionist desires that covered even darker intents. Hitler's ideology was just a more ambitious version of that which dominated the German right from before unification. It sought a unification of all German speaking peoples within an enlarged and hegemonic Germanic state within Europe at the expense of all other ethnic groups that may get in the way. It was precisely this that the German's began imposing on Eastern Europe prior to the end of the war and genocide, admittedly milder in form than the National Socialists industrial death factories 25 years later, was all part of the process.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It sought a unification of all German speaking peoples within an enlarged and hegemonic Germanic state within Europe at the expense of all other ethnic groups that may get in the way.

Boy, it's a darn good thing that such motives no longer exist among powers in that region today...

 

[Triton]

A thousand times this. Despite the socialist recasting of WW1 (especially prevalent in the British education system to this day) as some aberration directly consequent of capitalism and aristocracy the reality is that the root cause was a Germany with expansionist desires that covered even darker intents. Hitler's ideology was just a more ambitious version of that which dominated the German right from before unification. It sought a unification of all German speaking peoples within an enlarged and hegemonic Germanic state within Europe at the expense of all other ethnic groups that may get in the way. It was precisely this that the German's began imposing on Eastern Europe prior to the end of the war and genocide, admittedly milder in form than the National Socialists industrial death factories 25 years later, was all part of the process.

Let us also not forget the flight and forced expulsion of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania between 1945 and 1950. In addition, ethnic Germans were sent to internment and labor camps. An estimated 12 million ethnic Germans fled from central Europe into post war Germany and Austria. The Potsdam Declaration made no distinction between German citizens and ethnic Germans who were citizens of these European countries. These events have been described as population transfer, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. The death toll from the forced expulsions is estimated from 500,000 to between 2 to 2.5 million civilians.

 

[Triton]

Boy, it's a darn good thing that such motives no longer exist among powers in that region today...

What if the people the majority of the people residing in the Donbass want to be part of the Russian Federation? Is it unjust not to redraw the borders of a country when an empire falls if there are multiple generations of an ethnicity residing in a border region? The discussion of Ukraine wholly ignores the wishes of the people residing in the eastern part of the country.

 

[Orionblamblam]

What if the people the majority of the people residing in the Donbass want to be part of the Russian Federation?

What if the majority of the people living in Austin, Texas, want to be a part of Mexico? What if the majority of people living in Paris want to be a part of ISIS? What if the majority of people living in San Francisco want to be an independent nation? There are ways to make all of these happen. Marching in with foreign military power is *not* considered one of the more advisable ways. One would've thought that events of the last 100 years in Europe might've taught that lesson, but I guess not.

 

[Triton]

What if the people the majority of the people residing in the Donbass want to be part of the Russian Federation?

What if the majority of the people living in Austin, Texas, want to be a part of Mexico? What if the majority of people living in Paris want to be a part of ISIS? What if the majority of people living in San Francisco want to be an independent nation? There are ways to make all of these happen. Marching in with foreign military power is *not* considered one of the more advisable ways. One would've thought that events of the last 100 years in Europe might've taught that lesson, but I guess not.

The United States government did not permit the withdrawal of eleven states from the union in 1860 and 1861. Britain almost went to war against the United States over the Trent Affair of November 8, 1861 and might have recognized the Confederate States of America.

 

[Orionblamblam]

What if the people the majority of the people residing in the Donbass want to be part of the Russian Federation?

What if the majority of the people living in Austin, Texas, want to be a part of Mexico? What if the majority of people living in Paris want to be a part of ISIS? What if the majority of people living in San Francisco want to be an independent nation? There are ways to make all of these happen. Marching in with foreign military power is *not* considered one of the more advisable ways. One would've thought that events of the last 100 years in Europe might've taught that lesson, but I guess not.

The United States government did not permit the withdrawal of eleven states from the union in 1860 and 1861.

That had a little something to do with those eleven states launching a war of aggression against the US. So you make my point for me: trying to split a country apart by force of arms can be a fairly counter-productive way to go.

Britain almost went to war against the United States over the Trent Affair of November 8, 1861 and might have recognized the Confederate States of America.

An important plot point in Harry Harrisons "Stars & Stripes" alternate history novels. Spolier: this ends badly for Britain. Canada part of the US, Ireland freed, Buckingham Palace under American management... so, better all-round, I guess.

 

[Triton]

That had a little something to do with those eleven states launching a war of aggression against the US. So you make my point for me: trying to split a country apart by force of arms can be a fairly counter-productive way to go.

Perhaps Major Robert Anderson's refusal to abandon Fort Sumter to the state of South Carolina had something to do with the bombardment of April 12–14, 1861? The state of South Carolina did ask for the United States Army to leave the state.

An important plot point in Harry Harrisons "Stars & Stripes" alternate history novels. Spolier: this ends badly for Britain. Canada part of the US, Ireland freed, Buckingham Palace under American management... so, better all-round, I guess.

That was lucky that the Confederate States' response to a declaration of war by Great Britain was to rejoin the union. :

 

[Orionblamblam]

That had a little something to do with those eleven states launching a war of aggression against the US. So you make my point for me: trying to split a country apart by force of arms can be a fairly counter-productive way to go.

Perhaps Major Robert Anderson's refusal to abandon Fort Sumter to the state of South Carolina had something to do with the bombardment of April 12–14, 1861? The state of South Carolina did ask for the United States Army to leave the state.

And Castro asked the US Navy to leave Guantanamo Bay. And like Ft. Sumter, the US military was on firm legal footing to stay there. Unlike the South Carolinians, Castro wasn't enough of a *moron* to attack.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let us also not forget the flight and forced expulsion of ethnic Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania between 1945 and 1950. In addition, ethnic Germans were sent to internment and labor camps. An estimated 12 million ethnic Germans fled from central Europe into post war Germany and Austria. The Potsdam Declaration made no distinction between German citizens and ethnic Germans who were citizens of these European countries. These events have been described as population transfer, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. The death toll from the forced expulsions is estimated from 500,000 to between 2 to 2.5 million civilians.

Doesn't have anything to do with WWI.

 

[Triton]

Doesn't have anything to do with WWI.

JFC Fuller mentioned Hitler and the desire to create an enlarged and hegemonic Germanic state within Europe at the expense of all other ethnic groups. Then Orionblamblam had to make a sarcastic comment concerning current Russian irredentism. So am I going to be the only one blamed for taking the discussion off topic? :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

JFC Fuller mentioned Hitler and the desire to create an enlarged and hegemonic Germanic state within Europe at the expense of all other ethnic groups. Then Orionblamblam had to make a sarcastic comment concerning current Russian irredentism. So am I going to be the only one blamed for taking the discussion off topic? :

JFC was actually talking about German plans before Hitler to acquire more 'living space' in central and eastern Europe. The ethnic cleansing of Germans from east of the Oder was a byproduct of WWII and had nothing directly to do with these German desires to expand eastward before WWI apart from as an indication of where the eastward border of Germany stood before it was truncated in 1945. Before the end of WWI the Germans had actually achieved their territorial aims in eastern Europe with control over the Ukraine and Poland. It was only their collapse in the west that saw this new German empire lost to them.


Sean McKeekin's book "Berlin-Baghdad Express" is a good introduction to what the Germans were getting up to before WWI.

 

[Wingknut]

Niall Ferguson, in his contribution to his own collection Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals, (London, Picador, 1997) - the essay called "The Kaiser's European Union: What if Britain had 'stood aside' in August 1914?" (pp. 228-280) - talks about WW1 Germany’s expressed war aims becoming more grandiose as the conflict went on - including wishes expressed for a land corridor from Germany to China. The map below offers one view of what the achievement of WW1 Germany's aims would have meant - source: https://www.quora.com/How-powerful-would-Germany-have-been-today-if-it-had-not-suffered-the-losses-of-the-first-two-world-wars

Sorry to go along with the off-threadery (and at such length) but I found poor old Harry Harrison’s Stars and Stripes books well-nigh unreadable ... and silly with it. So the RMS ‘Trent’ affair makes the Union and Confederacy sink their differences to gang up on Blighty … and win? 'Aye, that’ll be right' (as we say in Scotland). As opposed to the ‘Trent’ affair leading to a de facto British / Confederacy alliance, with Britain fighting the Union on the seas, while deploying troops southward from Nova Scotia? If it had been the United States (pre-1861) versus Britain, my money would be firmly on the U.S. However, pitting the Union against the Confederacy and Britain simultaneously might be a different kettle of fish. Few points of detail: "Ireland freed"? Well, decide which bits and define "freed" while you're at it. Be they right or be they wrong, many Irish people have elected to remain in the U.K. to this very day - hence the difference between 'Northern Ireland' and 'Eire'. (See map below of Ireland's traditional counties from Wikipedia.) "Better all-round"? Well, you gotta wonder ... maybe if Harrison's counterfactual Confederates freed all their slaves, but would they do that?

Pardon this observation if you can but maybe if the US as a whole - as opposed to individual states like Ohio - had followed Britain’s lead and abolished slavery within its territories in 1807, and/or made slave trading a felony as the British Empire did in 1811, then the whole nasty ‘War Between the States’ business might have been skipped altogether. Oh, and before someone jumps down my throat with "Why, sir, it wasn’t at all about slavery but States' rights", it is funny that Jefferson Davis never signed off on an emancipation proclamation of his own – I wonder why?

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://gizmodo.com/these-stunning-maps-show-the-final-months-of-the-first-1774441421