Sow the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind: How World War I Started

Ask anyone with an elementary knowledge of world history how World War I (WWI) started and nine out of ten will probably say the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir apparent to the Austria-Hungary Empire.  This answer is very simplistic.  Most people have no idea what was behind the assassination and how Europe fell into a war they had no idea of the whirlwind that it would bring: 65 million men mobilized; 20 million dead, including civilians; 21 million wounded; three empires destroyed, Ottoman, German and Austria-Hungary.  The assassination was just the match that lit the fire, but the wood for the fire was there.  Since history is one of my passions, I've recently read two great books on WWI, The Lost History of 1914 by Jack Beatty, and The Sleepwalkers, How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark. The information I discuss here is from these two fine books. On this, the 100th anniversary of this most tragic war, we must learn its lessons or be condemned to repeat them. Indeed, we failed to learn these lessons and repeated the slaughter in World War II.

For over 60 years prior to 1914 Europe was in a state of constant turmoil, rising militarism and territorial expansionism.  Beginning with the Crimean War, 1853-66, there were multiple wars: The Austro-Prussian War of 1866, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, two Boer wars, 1880-81 and again in 1899-1902; two Balkan wars in 1912-13, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 and the Italo-Turkish war over Libya in 1911-12.

The causes of WWI are very complex.  There are many villains and it is extremely hard to pin the blame on one party or country.  There are some who are more to blame than others.  I will name them later.  The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 represents a major earthquake in European politics. With the victory over France, the Prussians established the new German Empire. The Germans humiliated the French, not only with their victory over them but by annexing two of their provinces, Alsace and Lorraine.  The new German Empire inaugurated a period of high tension and alarm for the remaining European powers.   Britain feared any threat to her dominance in the world, France, smarting from her defeat in 1870, remained bitter and bellicose.  Russia, smarting from its loss in the Crimean war and then from her loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War began a period of active militarism.  The German Empire, headed by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II, wanted to capitalize on their new power.

With the decline of the Ottoman Empire, former Ottoman territories in the Balkans were taken over by Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania.  In 1878 Austria-Hungary took over Bosnia-Herzegovina.  In 1908 Austria annexed this area, thus alienating neighboring Serbia which became extremely belligerent to Austria-Hungary.  Ethnic Serbs were scattered throughout the Balkans, in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and surrounding areas.  It was a Serbian dream to re-unite all Serbs into one Serbia.  The annexation  of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria was an event that set off the Serbians and basically put them on a belligerent status with Austria-Hungary.

To make a bad situation even worse, Serbia began to disintegrate politically.  On the morning of 11 June 1903, 28 Serbian Army officers approached the main entrance of Serbian King Alexander I's palace, disarmed the guard detail, went in and brutally murdered the king and his wife. Queen Draga.   After the murders a group headed by them began to rule Serbia in a form of a dictatorship.  From this time to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Serbia was nothing short of a fighter looking for a fight.  When the Archduke was assassinated on 28 June 1914, the Serbians were more or less apathetic, some even cheered the event.

World War I was triggered by the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.  The Austrians, knowing that the Serbians had been tormenting them for over 40 years and supporting anti-Austrian terrorists, blamed Serbia for the assassination.  The Austrians knew that they had been challenged by this assassination; not reacting would have been a humiliation to them that they could not accept, so they made humiliating demands on Serbia.  If Serbia failed to meet their demands, they would declare war on Serbia.  Indeed, this is what happened.  Once Austria-Hungary declared war, it unleashed all the war horses in all of Europe. The Russians were strong supporters of Serbia, claiming the Serbians as their Slavic brothers.  This was not entirely their motive, for they wanted to have the Balkans in their sphere of influence.  Indeed, Serbia would not have acted without the backing of the Russians. The Serbians had considered meeting Austria's demands. Had the Russians not spurred the Serbians, there probably would not have been a WWI.  Knowing that they had the Russians for their support, the Serbians felt empowered. The Russians,  additionally, wanted for many years, to control the Turkish Straits, the passageway between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.  Having influence in the Balkans was a way to get close to the Turkish Straits. Russia was reassured of success due to their earlier treaty with France whereby they pledged mutual assistance.  France provided Russia with assurances that, in the event of war France would back Russia militarily.

One of the things that the two earlier mentioned books on WWI make clear is the pathetic leadership weakness in all the European powers.  The Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe, the Tsar of Russia was very weak, the Austrian emperor was a mere figure-head.  Politicians in most countries were self-serving and under-handed, worrying about their own power and not the good of their country. In France, for example, the president and the prime minister often would keep information from each other and at other times sabotage each other for political reasons.  In Germany, it was never clear who held the real power; in some cases military leaders had more power and influence than politicians or the emperor.  The period also highlighted a certain militarism that was uncanny for the glorification of war to gain influence or power.  Many European leaders would show up at international meetings wearing their military uniforms.

Weak leadership, made worse by infighting among each nation's hierarchy was a contributing factor leading to war. If I had to name one country to blame for the war, I'd pick Russia, followed closely by their French cohorts.

The Limits of Diplomacy, or When Will They Ever Learn?

History is filled with examples of nations and politicians refusing to see reality and believe only what they want to believe.  They have learned to regret it - and at times at heavy costs, including the lives of millions.  Let's see some examples:

• The fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 to the Muslim Turks.  After hundreds of years of struggle, the Muslim Turks accomplish their desire to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire, then known as the Byzantine Empire, which had lived for over 1,500 years.  This happened while the rest of Christian Europe looked on as if this was some far away continent that did not have any impact on them.  Indeed, the Turks assured the Europeans that they had no intention of molesting them after they took Constantinople, the seat of Christianity at the time.  In his masterful book about the Byzantine Empire, Lost to the West, author Lars Brownworth describes how the leader of the Turks at the time, Mehmed II, known as Mehmed the Conqueror, went out of his way to assure the Europeans that he meant no harm to them.  He had previously made this same promise to the Byzantines earlier too.  They foolishly believed him.  Why?  They had to know that the Turks would not stop there. Appeasement failed miserably.  The Turks spent the next 400 years trying to conquer Europe.  They got as far as Vienna and besieged it not once, but twice, in 1529 and 1683. 

• In 1571 the Turks were preparing to invade Europe but were defeated at the Battle of Lepanto, off the coast of Corinth, Greece; they had learned their lesson from 1453.  A combined European naval fleet defeated the Ottoman Fleet and stopped a sure invasion of Europe.  Again, deeds speak louder than words.   Unfortunately, the Europeans forgot this lesson in 1939 when Adolph Hitler had conquest in his mind and was in the process of following through.

• Neville Chamberlain declares "peace in our time" after Adolph Hitler signed a piece treaty promising not to engage in any additional military action against any other country after his conquest of Czechoslovakia.  The Europeans, wanting to believe what they heard, against their better judgement, believed the tyrant.  Within two to three months of the treaty, Hitler invaded Poland, followed by France, Belgium, Russia, Britain and the rest of Europe. The Europeans chose to be fools.

• In our day we have the example of North Korea.  In the mid 1990s North Korea promised they would not build a nuclear bomb. The United States signed an agreement with them and loosened sanctions.  North Korea violated the agreement almost immediately; they lied; yet the rest of the world, wanting to believe this chose to be fools.

• The United States and Iran.  In the past twenty years, the United States has tried to deal diplomatically with Iran's nuclear ambition to no avail.  The United States has publicly stated that they would not accept a nuclear Iran.  All American presidents from Reagan to Obama have tried diplomacy; it has never worked.  Now, the Obama administration is trying to accept what the French have called "a sucker's deal," agreeing that Iran can build their nuclear program up to 20%.   Now, is there any evidence that the Iranians can be trusted? None whatsoever, but the Obama administration is so eager to agree not to take any military action that they will believe whatever they wish were true; not reality.  Do you remember 1979 and the taking of the U.S. hostages? They have not learned from history; they have chosen to be fools.

The Europeans in 1453 chose to believe what they wished to be true even though they had to know it could not be true so they allowed the Muslim Turks to conquer the hart of Christianity along with all the Christians in the country.  The Turks, to this day, persecute their Christian citizens.  One of our parish priests who was a United States Air Force Chaplain stationed in Turkey, said that the Christians could not even ring the bell of their church without the permission of civil authorities which was rarely given.

Last year the CBS TV program "60 Minutes" broadcast a piece about the persecuted Christians in Turkey. Click here to read the story and watch the video. Among the many things they mentioned was the fact that the Turks have now banned any Christian Seminaries. They want to make sure that Christians will disappear.  Peace at any price?  Christianity in 1453 lost almost half of the territory they inhabited. To give you some perspective of the enormity of this debacle, imagine that the world outside of Europe had refused to participate in World War II to fight the Nazis.  The Nazis would be ruling Europe today.  This was exactly the effect of Europe's failure to help their fellow Byzantine Christians resist aggression by the Turks.  They chose to be fools.

In 1939, the Europeans were so eager to avoid war that they wanted to believe anything even though they had to know that they would pay a heavy price for appeasing Hitler.  Indeed, they paid a heavy price, not only financially but in the enormous loss of life. Eighty-five million people died in World War II as a result.  Peace at any price?  They chose to be fools.

If you follow today's news you will see that we, in the United States, are repeating these same mistakes, as described earlier.  The US looks like it has chosen to be the fools.  When will they learn?