Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#111

Post by rustynails »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a…

Your version is a somewhat closer reflection of the version of what is taught in school today (ie. there is no magical 1869). However, the actual conflict was sparked over Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's assassination. You excluded some fundamental points that help understand a much broader series of issues (namely, a very late unification of Germany causing upset in many alliances, region-wide instability beyond Germany and a crumbling Austro-Hungarian empire desperate to cling to power).

As an example, read Aethelric's post here as it is important in explaining the seeds that set Germany as it was in 1869.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v3vk8/why_d...

The region we now know as Germany was a series of small towns with mostly independent rule. With instability (especially crumbling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Germany established formal alliances quickly as the political climate grew in intensity.

Franz Ferdinand was shot, the European states fought and the US (with late entry) injected fresh ideas, troops and supplies, which decisively turned the tides of a messy war.

So, 1869 was more like a traffic light that triggered the car crash. Without understanding the history, you can't really understand each participant's trajectories or motives. To limit the answer to "1869" is only slightly more informative than limiting the answer to "Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's assassination".

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#112

Post by veddox »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106
veddox wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is asking France to return Alsace-Lorraine, but in a historical article, one might expect at least a footnote to say that this wasn't just French territory! And I don't think the comparison with Texas is all that fitting: this particular territorial dispute goes back almost to the days of Charlemagne, with sovereignty changing numerous times. This isn't so much a case of "It was yours, now it's mine" as of "It…

My point was that, no matter how many times it went back and forth, it had been France for over a hundred years. That's "just French territory" for most reasonable purposes. (Except this is Europe, where a hundred years is not a particularly long time...)

> (Except this is Europe, where a hundred years is not a particularly long time...)

Precisely what we mean ;-)

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#113

Post by BurningFrog »

badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

As I remember The Guns of August, The British government was not aware that its military had promised the French assistance, and did not intend to participate in the war until informed about it.

I imagine some rather awkward conversations took place.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

WesleyLivesay wrote: post #53
bluejekyll wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, even if you do divide it in half, that's still a rate of death of 500,000 a year. So using that as a way of estimating deaths of another conflict, it should have been enough to stop an actual war. That requires the people ruling the countries to actually care about the effects this would have on their own populations... Sadly, even using that as an estimate it would have been off by more than half of how many w…

Absolutely! I don't think your conclusions are wrong, it is pretty crazy that they would make that large of an error in the article. I assume they mixed up "missing" and "captured". It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. All involved probably did some mental math based on actions like the the Franco-Prussi…

> It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years.

The war happened because of that, largely (and the related belief that it would not only be short, but heavily favor the aggressor—a belief often referred to as "offense dominance"—which is why the first beginnings of readiness in response to crises set off an unstoppable rush to war.)

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#115

Post by herewulf »

badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

Yes, Britain. We take it for granted today but Britain and France being allies was quite an amazing thing. They had been traditional enemies for about 800 years (let's not forget about the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century either). The Crimean War in 1853 saw them united against a common enemy - Russia.

The Crimean War was also significant because Austria-Hungary, though not much of a belligerent, turned on Russia which left them without allies when facing Prussia in 1866 and of course the two Empires were critically still enemies when the Archduke was assassinated.

One can keep going backwards in history with cause and effect, but for the two points above, I like to see the Crimean War as the turning point of the European alliances that were in place at the start of "the Great War".

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#116

Post by hackuser »

bluejekyll wrote: post #45
badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

> Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice.

That seems like conventional wisdom, but the U.S. started a large military build-up before Pearl Harbor. The military draft began in 1940. And of course the U.S. was actively supporting the UK through lend-lease.

There were still isolationists in Washington and even prominent supporters of Hitler in the public sphere (if you ever wonder how misguided people can be, remember that), but certainly there were many indications that the U.S. would enter the war.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#117

Post by hackuser »

vacri wrote: post #92
bluejekyll wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.

Sorry, my mistake. Message deleted.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#118

Post by emanreus »

yazan94 wrote: post #12
threesixandnine wrote: post #2

What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest. Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain. The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.

True, you are correct. Though it could be attributed to the author as a smaller mistake, as Franz was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. I am more confused to how the US's reconstruction had anything to do with setting the stage for World War 1. > For just as 1866 guaranteed a militarily and culturally strong Germany which would wear down Britain, France, and Italy to a near breaking point in World War I, it also…

> Though it could be attributed to the author as a smaller mistake, as Franz was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist.

Not to nitpick but he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Though he was an ethnic Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the time occupied by Austria-Hungary.

During his trial he stated: "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be freed from Austria."[1] He was a member of the Young Bosnia movement which included ethnic Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats.

The distinction will become important especially during WWII and later during Yugoslavia's breakup in the 1990s, and it's at the heart of the rise and fall of Yugoslavia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip#CITEREFDedijer...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#119

Post by WesleyLivesay »

vkou wrote: post #107
grotsnot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)

The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated. Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.

I think the comment above is questioning the belief that France would have packed it in and called it a day if Paris was captured (I believe the answer is no) not what would have happened if France was out of the war.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#120

Post by zeteo »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a…

Correct, if Germany had continued Bismarck's foreign policy [1] then the next war (if it came) would have looked very different. Antagonizing Russia in the Balkans, France in Morocco, and Britain on the high seas were rather gratuitous moves between 1900 - 1914, driven by Wilhelm II's personality more than by any geopolitical factors.

It's amazing how much hubris it took to sink the Second Reich. As far as I can tell, Germany was on track to win the war as late as spring 1917. They had the resources and the right strategy: defensive in the West (retreat to the Hindenburg Line) and offensive in the East. The last crucial mistake was resuming unrestricted submarine warfare at the same time. This predictably drew the US into the war. By summer 1918, the benefits of defeating Russia and Romania in the East were nullified by American troops pouring in at a rate of 10,000 a day, and the war's outcome was pretty much sealed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance_Treaty

Post reply on HN