100 years of somnambulism

[laurence]

i've just finished reading Christopher Clark's "the sleepwalkers - how europe went to war in 1914"

having done history o-level many moons ago and finishing the 'era' with those events it was fascinating to read more... it was also quite sad.

the book shows how the events could easily have been changed, but the thinking at the time and the paranoi of the imperial leaders stymied any hopes for peace. with so many grudges the leaders wanted a war and were almost looking for an excuse. it also shows how a handful of politicans, officials and diplomats drove the policies that determined the outcome.

another aspect was the position of germany - not the naked aggressor portrayed over the years, but threatened by russian mobilisation and forced to react.

another aspect of the book, to me anyway, is how nothing has changed. for a (supposed) inteligent society we have learned nothing. the sabre rattling of the EU and russia over eukraine is scarily reminiscent of the events of a century ago. outmoded imperial dreams clashing with each other (in whatever guise thay may be portrayed).

the book also deals with some recent clashes, especially in the balkans, comparing the demands of nato to serbia a few years ago to those of austria to serbia after old franz was gunned down.

a fascinating, if hard read (the book isn't chronological as it deals with country by country aspects a lot of the time) that almost makes you think the outcome is going to be different to what you know it will be.

 

[gbb]

This strokes a chord with me having just finished 'Catastrophe, Europe Goes To War' by Max Hastings.
The theme is the same, we meandered into the worst conflict there'd ever been at that time because of old grudges, fears about nations ability to wage war in the future ie, Germany really feared Russia was in the next few years going to become a major military threat..strike now before they got there. Russia couldnt stand by and see Serbia, a long time antagonist nation to Austria, attacked, they were Slav 'brothers' to Russia. Britain didnt really want to get involved but couldnt allow Germany to become too powerful in Europe..which they probably would have had the British not got involved...the Austrains were probably most culpable..and lost their empire because of it, were militarily weak and ineffective, the Serbians lost a massive amount of adult males through the war...and so on.
I never really was interested in WW1 before I read the book..so glad I did.
I may get your book from the library Laurence

 

[laurence]

yes, @gbb it was such a shame. one of the interesting episodes was serbia's response to the austrian ultimatum, where they handled it very well and called the bluff and even capitulated with most of the demands. even though it was delivered on time, the austrians packed up and left serbia and declared war shortly afterwards.

another great historical read is Poland: a History by Adam Zamoyski. again, tragic and funny at the same time. europe really is messed up!

 

[asterix]

It's a matter of perspective. In fact Germany were an aggressive force, first under Bismarck who used the Schleswig Holstein debacle and then fomented the Franco-Prussian war to create a German Empire within Europe. Bismarck however was savvy enough to see the virtue of keeping in with Russia and it was not until the bumptious Kaiser Wilhelm II 'dropped the pilot' that succeeding Chancellors and the Kaiser himself allowed relations to deteriorate. Before Wilhelm II relations between the Hohenzolern and Romanov families had been close. The new Kaiser put paid to that.

Post Bismarck, German foreign policy followed an increasingly dangerous course prompted increasingly by envy of Britains colonial possessions but Britain's cause was not helped by our own ineptitude in, for example, the Boer War. The plain fact was that the heyday of the British empire was long past, the advantages of our industrial revolution were steadily being eroded by complacency and by the progress being made in the USA and Germany. It's my opinion that the high-water mark of the British Empire was around the time of the Indian Mutiny when there was a change in British relations from benign trading partner to military backed rule. By 1900 our position as top dog was over but we could not see it.

It's true that Europe has many tensions remaining and that is a lesson that our mainland neighbours took to heart when they established the Common Market (a proposal first made before WW2 but abandoned after the Wall Street crash led to the Great Depression. If only..). Much of Europe had been occupied; we were not, thanks to the English Channel and to the French army which gave the British troops time to escape at Dunkirk by holding off German forces. Perhaps that is why our commitment to a united Europe is not as strong as it is on the mainland.

 

[laurence]

one of the issues that comes from the book is the that it was the last hurrah for the empires - austri was on the wane, russia was close to revolution (especially after their drubbing by the japanese) and everyone else was in similar turmoil. the empires were out of date and clinging on by their fingernails.

one of the other things that comes across is that no one really thought it would happen. everyone had been close to the brink a few years previously and they just assumed it would fizzle out again. once it didn't. the hawks took over (Churchill was instrumental in the british involvement by pledging the navy would cover france).

the germans knew russia would be ahead of them and time was running out if they went to war, but they seemed very hesitant to fight and when the time came, messed up with their plans (almost emulating the frence i the franco-prussian war).

there is some interesting mention of Home Rule being another reason for britain embarking on the war. by committing troops to europe they couldn't send them to ireland and the army would rather fight foreigners than their own. there was also the problem that some army officers might resign should home rule be implemented.

whatever the reasons for the involvement of the countries, it did show a total lack of understanding of the possible consequences by the politicians... again, things haven't changed in the last century.