01: The Shot Heard Around the World

Hello, and welcome to the Great War Podcast, an in-depth look at the origins, battles, and consequences of the First World War. Episode 1, The Shot Heard Around the World. The First World War of 1914-1918 unleashed carnage and destruction on a scale unseen in history. Yet, when news of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, began to spread across Europe,

few people can anticipate what would unfold in the following weeks. The summer of 1914 was supposed to be one of optimism and peace. The harvests were plentiful, commoners and elite alike were gearing up for their seasonal retreats, and the storm clouds of war seemed far off in the distance. Although conflict had just been narrowly avoided the previous year, the prospect of another crisis breaking out so soon could not have been further from their minds. Things were tranquil.

and the people of Europe were enjoying their position as the dominant military, cultural, and economic force on the planet. That same summer, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the 50-year-old heir to the Habsburg dynasty, had agreed to oversee scheduled imperial military maneuvers in the recently annexed province of bosnia after inspecting the hasburg troops followed by the usual salute and handshake ceremonies the archduke accompanied with his wife sophie

made their way to the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo as part of the state visit. Although Ferdinand had been previously warned of the increased activity of Slavic terrorist groups operating in the Balkans, the Archduke had remained undeterred. Accompanied by their escorts and entourage, the royal couple made their way to the streets of Sarajevo in an open-air motorcade, waving to the masses of people who would cram the streets to get a glimpse of the future emperor.

On June 28, 1914, as the two Austrians made their way towards Sarajevo's town hall, an object was hurled at the Archduke's motorcade. Several seconds later, a bomb exploded. wounding several members of the entourage but leaving ferdinand and sophie unscathed from the blast slightly shaken but unmoved ferdinand ordered the motorcade onward and following a brief speech with the mayor of sarajevo

the Archduke insisted the driver detour to a local hospital, where those staffers wounded in the bomb attack were being treated. As the motorcade slowly made its way towards the hospital, the driver had been forced to make a stop. and reverse direction in the middle of the crowded streets. Emerging from the crowd was 18-year-old Gavrilo Princip, an ultra-Serbian nationalist and member of the Black Hand, a terrorist group committed to achieving Slavic independence in the Balkans.

Princip approached the stalled vehicle, drew his pistol, and fired point-blank at the Archduke and Sophie. Within minutes, the royal couple lay dead, and Princip was quickly seized by onlookers.

Even days after the assassinations in Sarajevo, it seemed unlikely that it would set in motion the chain of events which would drag Europe from that golden summer of 1914 to the most destructive conflict the world had ever seen. The bullets from Princip's pistol triggered unending conflict for the next four years, which would begin in the Balkans, spread to the northern frontiers of France, eastward into Russia, and as far south as the Middle East,

and claimed the lives of nearly 20 million people by the time hostilities ended on November 11, 1918. The Great War of 1914-18 would bring change on a global scale which had not been seen since the fall of Rome. Borders would be redrawn through invasion and revolution. Old empires would crumble and give birth to newly formed independent nations which would rise up and take their place. Centuries of European decadence and hegemony would be all but wiped out.

and those who survived the horrors would be hard-pressed to remember what life was like prior to 1914. The summer of 2014 will mark the centennial anniversary of the Great War. And even a century after the events itself, historians continue to grapple with questions over why and how the war broke out. There seems to be no shortage of arguments and counter-arguments explaining why history unfolded the way it did.

Arguments which range from blaming Germany and its childish emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, to France's undying desire to recapture lost territory, to the desperate Russians eager to reestablish their autocracy among the great powers, To the British, accused of choosing to not intervene until it was too late. To the Austrians and Chief of Staff Conrad von Hutzendorf, who sought war in the Balkans for years.

And last but not least, to the Serbians themselves for not capitulating to Austrian demands in the wake of Ferdinand's death. The study of the Great War is an incredibly vast reservoir of information which would be impossible to read in its entirety in one lifetime.

No other topic has received this much attention from historians and even today it still manages to hold a grip on our collective conscience. So where do we start? How do we attempt to make sense of this incredibly complex and complicated set of events? What is unanimously agreed upon is that no one, again, no one, not the Austrians, Germans, Russians, British, or French, went to war over Ferdinand's death.

The Archduke was never really well liked among the imperial courts, and news of his assassination was let with little more than a few remorseful words, along with their regular telegraphs of condolences. This podcast will not attempt to hit on every cause and root of the First World War, as that would be an almost impossible task, but I do aim to provide a fairly comprehensive roadmap, highlighting the key developments along the way.

Of course, in any historical analysis, picking where and when to begin an investigation such as this is a difficult job in itself. After much mental back and forth, I have decided that the year 1890... will serve as an effective point in which to anchor our discussions going forward. Why 1890, you ask? Why not 1871, 1905, or any other year leading to 1914?

Well, my reasoning for choosing 1890 is largely due to a couple of developments which occurred within the German imperial court. Namely, the crowning of Kaiser Wilhelm II as Emperor of Germany two years prior, and more importantly, his subsequent dismissal of the great statesman Otto von Bismarck, which would mark a major turning point in German foreign policy near the turn of the 20th century.

I am in no way saying that events prior to 1890 have no relevance to the outbreak of war in 1914, but at the end of the day, I had to pick a side. And I believe that a 24-year prologue will be sufficient to lay enough groundwork moving forward. But before we arrive at 1890, I wanted to start off by spreading this episode, discussing the outline of the European political apparatus in the early to mid-19th century, and touch on two key points to help set the scene a little bit.

Firstly, to discuss the legacy of the Napoleonic Wars and the influence they had on state decision making. And second, the initial formation of the alliance system on the continent.

that same system of agreements which would entangle Europe as it stumbled towards war in 1914. So, let's get started.

The political map of Europe from the early 19th century onwards was primarily based on a check and balance system. The leading states France, Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were organized in such a way where if one state grew to become too powerful, the remaining states would either ally with one another and defeat the aggressive party in battle, or work toward securing it into an economic or military agreement.

to help curb future confrontations. The origins of the check and balance system can be traced back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which restructured European politics following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo. The wars of Napoleon are a fascinating area of study and played a huge role in shaping European politics, even up to the 20th century. But I want to send out a fair warning that I will not be covering that conflict in any substantial detail here.

Major events will be skipped over in the interest of time, but as a lover of history, it pained me greatly to have to make this sacrifice. Sorry guys. For over a decade, Napoleon's armies had cut a swath through the continent. and as French domination of the mainland became more apparent, its forces brought with them new ideologies which threatened to destabilize the balance of power. You see...

Napoleon saw himself as a liberator of sorts, and being a product of the infamous 1789 French Revolution, he was quick to side with those revolutionary ideologies, which today fall under the umbrella of left-wing liberal thought. As he conquered nation after nation, he was able to introduce sweeping social and religious changes along the way. He abolished archaic serfdom in France, introduced policies which allowed free practice of religion

And his crowning jewel was the Napoleonic Code, which would overtake the Catholic Church as the governing body of social law and bring in vast reforms to both civil and criminal sectors. But we also need to be careful here. Bonaparte was not some dedicated humanist. His well-documented opinions towards women tells quite the opposite story. But many of his reforms were quite radical for the time, especially in contrast to the ultra-conservative 19th century Europe.

And to those conservative ruling classes, this French upstart was seen as nothing more than a direct threat to the status quo, and inevitably their own monopoly on power. How did they expect to hold on to power when they were being defeated by a man? who draped himself in these new radical ideas. When Napoleon escaped his exile to Elba and returned to Paris in March of 1814, remember, this is the historical sacrifice, a coalition of British, Dutch,

German, Prussian, and Belgian troops were assembled under the command of the British Duke of Wellington, and a Prussian general by the name of Liebricht von Blücher. Word came that Napoleon was mustering his forces in modern-day Belgium, near the town of Waterloo. The combined forces under Wellington and Blucher broke camp and marched out to meet the French troops. This final showdown for Napoleon would be eerily similar to a previous engagement between coalition and French forces.

as it was under similar conditions which defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Nations Laird-Leipzig in 1813 and 1814, which saw the general exile to Elba in the first place. Despite nearly 125,000 troops under his command, Napoleon was again unable to deliver victory against the Allied forces and was soundly defeated. His attempt to regain power had ended after only 100 days.

and the French general was exiled a second time, but this time for good, to St. Helena, where he would die of a painful, cancer-related death in 1821. After the Battle of Waterloo in June of 1815,

It was clear to the victorious allies that they had just dodged a bullet, and that something had to be done. The violence and intensity of the French Revolution, coupled with the rise of Napoleon, had shocked the conservative statesmen of Europe.

who feared similar events occurring within their respective borders. Equally distressing was that this had all happened to France, one of the leading conservative powers up to the eve of the revolution. If it happened there, then it could happen anywhere.

No state would be immune, and that prospect had scared them to death. So, in November 1815, representatives of the Allied states, Britain, Prussia, along with Austria and Russia, who were supposed to fight at Waterloo but due to the distances did not arrive until after the battle, had assembled in the Austrian capital of Vienna so they could figure out just what they had to do.

It is important to point out that delegates of the involved states had been meeting on and off again in Vienna since September of 1814, following Napoleon's first defeat at Leipzig in May of that year. But since Napoleon was done for good by November 1815, I refer to the Congress of Vienna as a collective whole, which includes the agreements made in both the 1814 and 1815 meetings.

had arrived in Vienna seeking to answer the question of how they were going to rebuild Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Essentially, they sat around a large table and had agreed that for the good of everybody, The following things had to happen. A. That there would be no more revolutions. B. That there would be no more Napoleons. And C. That revolutions would lead to Napoleons.

In the future, the delegates agreed that Europe should be run like a well-oiled machine. Power would be maintained through an equilibrium shared among the most powerful states. In order for that to happen, new borders would have to be drawn up. so that each state would be able to balance the other off. No single state would be allowed to grow to the point where it could take charge and dominate the remaining powers. Remember, they had just escaped Napoleon, and that had taken nearly 15 years.

So the fear of another usurper taking liberties against the established system was still very much alive in their minds. After the delegates agreed that power should be shared amongst one another, the question then arose over what to do with France.

The French were, after all, the reason why they were all there. The debate over whether to punish France or give it a favorable peace rose to a fever pitch, and no doubt assisted to the skillful diplomacy of Maurice Talleyrand, the key French representatives,

It was agreed that the Allies cannot be too draconian in their terms. Now, it was not as if the French had guilt-tripped the Allies into making this decision. The fragility of the new French monarchy under Louis XVIII was very much in question. After all, the new king was already facing a mountain of economic and political burdens as he worked to rebuild French prestige. If the Allies had agreed to be punitive and leveled France with a hefty penalty,

It could have brought the new regime to a spectacular crash, which would have only fueled the flames of another revolution. And that was something no one, especially the French, were interested in having at this point. When the Treaty of Paris was signed... on november 20th 1815 signaling the final agreement of the vienna congress the french had avoided a damning punishment they were forced to return plundered art pay a sum of some 700 million francs which would be paid off earlier than expected

and returned to their pre-1789 revolution borders, and before the calendar would flip to 1816, France was able to re-establish itself among the great powers in Europe. Why were the Allies not too hard on France? Well, the answer is that, basically, the delegates had agreed that Eru and France would be bad for Europe, but, more importantly, bad for business. If stability on the continent was what they truly desired, then France would have to play an active role.

It was too big and too influential to be sent to the miners after only a few bad games, and it had been agreed that France had actually been the victim of a violent revolution in the name of radical liberal ideologies.

In other words, those revolutionary ideas were seen as a flu which France had caught, and you can never blame someone for acting differently when they are sick now, can you? When the Congress of Vienna broke, the map of Europe looked far different than what it had previously been. You'll remember that to help secure stability, the delegates agree that resizing the state boundaries would be an effective way for each state to balance each other out.

The Austrian Empire increased in size by securing lands in Italy through the annexation of Lombardy and Venezia. Russia made inroads and acquired parts of modern-day Poland.

and as said before the french could return to their pre-1789 borders but had to forfeit lands which they had acquired through napoleon's conquest the british true to their nature at this point in history had chosen not to entangle themselves with events on the continent and retreated to the comfort of their island and vast overseas empire but it was in the heart of the mainland where the most drastic change occurred

During the Vienna meetings, the Allies had agreed that the Holy Roman Empire, which had been devastated during the Napoleonic conflict, would be put down for good. Replacing it would be a German confederation, made up of some 38 independent states, which will be ruled jointly by both Prussian and Austrian kingdoms. We will have more to say about this confederation in the next episode, but it was these provinces which would make up the creation of the modern state of Germany by 1871.

The period following the Congress of Vienna ushered in an era where peace and stability would be maintained through cooperation of the continental powers, namely Prussia, Austria, Russia, and later France. Through this new apparatus, we also see the development of a new phenomenon in 19th century politics, the emergence of the alliance system, which would continue to exist until the eve of the First World War.

After Waterloo, the Allies had recognized that they had only managed to survive Napoleon by banding together and defeating a common enemy. And after Vienna, we see the creation of two distinct alliances. which would form the backbone of future political agreements until 1914. The first was the Quadruple Alliance, signed in November 1815 by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

Its aim was to act as a buffer in the case of future French aggression, but also maintain the status quo and newly drawn border settlements. In 1818, the four powers were joined by France, forming the Quintuple Alliance. The five powers agreed to meet periodically over the following two decades and check in, exchange pleasantries, and discuss any problems which may arise. The second was the Holy Alliance between Russia...

Prussia, and Austria. Although not quite as political as the quintuple alliance, its goal was to renounce the prospect of conflict, and protect what they saw as a mutual Christian faith. It also had the added effect as being a bulwark against liberal thought, as it sought to protect the ultra-Orthodox autocracies of Tsarist Russia in the Habsburg dynasty.

Although not as significant as the quintuple alliance, it did help sow the seeds of future trouble, especially in the Balkans near the turn of the century. The political situation in Europe was now facing a much different problem. For nearly 25 years it had been dealing with war and conflict, but was now tasked with maintaining peace under this new restructured balance of power and alliances.

But despite all the achievements from the meetings in Vienna, there remained one major omission which would soon challenge its newly established system. Borders may have been redrawn, and things may have been optimistic. But within the newly occupied territories, there remained growing dissension among the people. The ideas which had come out of France during the 1789 revolution had not simply been forgotten because there was a new boss in town.

Nationalism and liberalism had arrived and were here to stay. While the delegates at Vienna and heads of state could look proudly at what they had accomplished, the flames of revolution would never be stamped out for good. Next week... We will see how these ideologies continue to fester, and would result in revolts flaring up all over Europe, which would threaten to render the Vienna agreements obsolete. In the ashes of these revolts would rise a new player on the European stage.

which would come to dominate politics for the next several decades, the unified state of Germany. Thanks for sticking by, and we will see you next week.