7 ms·

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

by yazan94 10y ago

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 guaranteed a truly united United States, with a society that held the majority view that democracy and equality were worth fighting for – and which would intervene to defeat Germany just in the nick of time. Nothing in the piece supports this statement, and I find this pretty hard to agree with. The first part of the article is a rehash of known facts and history. The last few paragraphs are, from what I can tell, irrelevant to the overall theme as well as thinly-veiled glorification of the United States Civil Rights Act.

thinkloop 10y ago
I understood it that since the US unified and was able to allow african americans into the military, they were strong enough and stable enough to participate. Additionally since african american (human) equality was front and center, germany's hate-fueled racist agenda was especially distasteful adding social and political motivation to participate.
- smhenderson 10y ago
  Was Germany's involvement in WWI really based on a "hate-fueled, racist agenda"? Of course it was for WWII but I thought Bismark was more into empire building than out to get rid of anyone except the Germans...
  - vkou 10y ago
    1. Bismark would have never supported Germany's behaviour leading up to WWI. The people in charge thought they had the genius of Bismark, but had a bit more in common with Nero. 2. The primary 'hate-fueled racist agenda' in WWI was the Serb-Austrian relationship... And that was less about direct racism, and more about imperialism. (Which the Entente was completely guilty of.)
emanreus 10y ago
> 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#CITEREFDedijer1966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip#CITEREFDedijer...
- nzp 10y ago
  The distinction is extremely important as since the breakup of Yugoslavia Serbian nationalists have tried and practically succeeded in erasing Young Bosnia's ideology presenting them as right-wing Serbian nationalists. Even saying they were Yugoslavian nationalists probably doesn't correctly convey to people of today what they really meant and wanted—they mostly also considered themselves anarchists/libertarian communists (one of the most read authors among the group was Kropotkin, Princip was actually reading his Memoirs of a Revolutionist the night before the assassination). Čabrinović was extremely active as an anarcho-syndicalist and had prior problems with authorities for organizing workers' struggles. They saw national (under the premise that most peoples of west Balkans are really the same ethnic group divided by religion) liberation as a means to further workers' liberation (if one looks at economic conditions of Bosnia, and most of Balkans at that time it can make some sense, but that's a different topic). What complicates their case was the fact that the assassination was materially supported by the Black Hand, a secret nationalist organization in the Serbian Army. To see how words and designations can mean little in politics, later in 1920's Yugoslavia there was a prominent “Yugoslavian nationalist“ movement ORJUNA (ORYUNA, Organization of Yugoslavian Nationalists) which was an openly fascist organization—the complete opposite of what Young Bosnia was.

by yazan94 10y ago

thinkloop 10y ago

I understood it that since the US unified and was able to allow african americans into the military, they were strong enough and stable enough to participate. Additionally since african american (human) equality was front and center, germany's hate-fueled racist agenda was especially distasteful adding social and political motivation to participate.

smhenderson 10y ago
Was Germany's involvement in WWI really based on a "hate-fueled, racist agenda"? Of course it was for WWII but I thought Bismark was more into empire building than out to get rid of anyone except the Germans...
- vkou 10y ago
  1. Bismark would have never supported Germany's behaviour leading up to WWI. The people in charge thought they had the genius of Bismark, but had a bit more in common with Nero. 2. The primary 'hate-fueled racist agenda' in WWI was the Serb-Austrian relationship... And that was less about direct racism, and more about imperialism. (Which the Entente was completely guilty of.)

emanreus 10y ago

> 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#CITEREFDedijer1966 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip#CITEREFDedijer...

nzp 10y ago
The distinction is extremely important as since the breakup of Yugoslavia Serbian nationalists have tried and practically succeeded in erasing Young Bosnia's ideology presenting them as right-wing Serbian nationalists. Even saying they were Yugoslavian nationalists probably doesn't correctly convey to people of today what they really meant and wanted—they mostly also considered themselves anarchists/libertarian communists (one of the most read authors among the group was Kropotkin, Princip was actually reading his Memoirs of a Revolutionist the night before the assassination). Čabrinović was extremely active as an anarcho-syndicalist and had prior problems with authorities for organizing workers' struggles. They saw national (under the premise that most peoples of west Balkans are really the same ethnic group divided by religion) liberation as a means to further workers' liberation (if one looks at economic conditions of Bosnia, and most of Balkans at that time it can make some sense, but that's a different topic). What complicates their case was the fact that the assassination was materially supported by the Black Hand, a secret nationalist organization in the Serbian Army. To see how words and designations can mean little in politics, later in 1920's Yugoslavia there was a prominent “Yugoslavian nationalist“ movement ORJUNA (ORYUNA, Organization of Yugoslavian Nationalists) which was an openly fascist organization—the complete opposite of what Young Bosnia was.