There is a sense of watching some sad tragicomedy unfold, wondering what unexpected and unanticipated catastrophe will happen next, oblivious to the reality that – as at the start of World War I – we might literally be one bullet away from worldwide destruction.
On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo, the provincial capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an Austrian territory that had been annexed in 1908. Princip was a Serbian, and part of a plot that included five others organized by Danilo Illic. Their goal was to free the region from Austrian control and establish a new Yugoslavian state. In secret, they positioned themselves along the route of the royal couple’s open air motorcade through Sarajevo, attempting to bomb the procession. The first bomb missed its target, hitting the car behind the Archduke and his wife, wounding close to 20 people. Princip himself waited until later that same day and by a dark twist of fate, found himself right beside the motorcade while leaving an event. The car carrying the Archduke and Sophie had taken a wrong turn, stalled out and was stuck in the street, a not uncommon occurrence in 1911 Double Phaeton. Princip stepped up and gunned both down at point blank range with a pistol, literally standing on the footboard of the car. Sophie collapsed onto her husband’s lap, and never regained consciousness. The Archduke himself lingered for a little while in a semi catatonic state, mumbling “Sophie, Sophie! Don’t die! Live for our children!” and claiming his injuries were nothing. A subsequent investigation revealed that the assassination ring had received support from the Serbian nationalist movement, including a secret network known as the Black Hand, the chief of the military intelligence section of the Serbian general staff, and other members of Serbian intelligence. Tensions had been simmering in the region in the two decades prior, after the Treaty of Berlin gave Austria-Hungary control of a former Ottoman territory Vilayet of Bosnia. The treaty also made Serbia itself a sovereign state, which quickly grew more nationalist, expanding its own territory into the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, opposing Austria in the region, and cultivating ties with Russia. The Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a flashpoint for nationalist sentiment, prompting a series of crises even before the assassination.
The killing of the heir to one of the most powerful empires in the world, albeit one in a long, slow decline, could not pass without a muscular response, however. One month later, Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia responded by declaring war on Austria. Germany, allied with Austria, promptly declared war on Russia as well. France, allied with Russia, then declared war on Germany and Austria. England allied with France, soon did the same. Less than 45 days after the assassination, the world was at war over what was essentially a backwater territory, long in dispute between Austria, the Ottomans, and the Russians, and of little major strategic interest to anyone. Serbia was not a major center of power or a hub of world affairs, and yet the war launched there on that tragic day, partly by pure chance, lasted for over 4 years and resulted in somewhere around 14 million deaths and some 23 million wounded. The world had never seen anything like it, so horrific it was called the Great War or the War to End All Wars until it was repeated even more tragically less than twenty years later. For decades, historians have debated how such a global cataclysm could have occurred over what was a relatively minor territorial dispute of a kind not unknown in that era, when most major countries controlled near and far flung territories as part of their empires, frequently dealing with unrest and small uprisings. After all, the key countries involved had come to this precipice before over different disputes and somehow always stepped back from the brink. There was no reason to believe the same wouldn’t happen again, or at least so everyone thought. It is doubly puzzling considering that most in positions of authority didn’t believe such a war was possible in the first place, and in the event that war broke out, would only last a short period before saner minds prevailed. This was a time when it was believed nations were capable of rational action, settling disputes through negotiation and diplomacy rather than bombs. Wars were seen as a relic of the past, and a rising working class was seen as a common bond between all countries, rather than as fodder for infantry. A half-century into the industrial revolution, life had become more precious, standards of living higher, rights extended to women and other groups long denied them. Progress was everywhere, politically, economically, and technologically. Few believed the world was willing to burn it all down in a fit of largely useless rage, as though a family had just built a new house for itself and promptly set it on fire for seemingly no reason.
Dozens of theories have been posited to explain the internal dynamics of the countries involved and the rapidly changing alliances that lead to this conflagration. Russia was still ruled by the Tsar, and had recently suffered a devastating loss to Japan. The Tsar was clinging to power and needed an enemy at which to direct the growing anger of his people. Austria or anyone else could serve that role, and when an opportunity arose, it was taken. Austria, likewise, was in a decline and feared that her power was slowly slipping away. There was a sense in general that democracies and republics would soon replace all remnants of the older, monarchical order. Germany, itself a monarchy when it came to military affairs, had cultivated designs on annexing disputed regions in France for decades if not a full century. A rising power that was only officially organized as a modern country in 1871, the ruling Kaiser saw both an opportunity to expand his territory and show the world that a new empire to reckon with had officially arrived. France was aware of German designs, and desperate to defend themselves. England, which had only recently allied with France, believed the rapidly growing German economy and military were a threat to Great Britain’s interest around the world and sought to stop the Kaiser before his new nation fully emerged. Nationalism, which had generally been believed to be declining, proved rampant after the first shots were fired and the public, which most thought would be against the war, was unwilling to relent. Diplomacy, so critical in the period before, completely broke down, even though many of the players involved including the King of England, the German Kaiser, and the Russian Tsar were all related by blood. America, under progressive President Woodrow Wilson, was isolationist and passive, unwilling to take an active role as we had before under the more muscular and decisive Teddy Roosevelt, who had avoided a major war in South America and negotiated the peace between Russia and Japan. Somehow, the combination of these factors resulted in the most devastating war the world had ever seen, one no one truly wanted, and yet it began in less than two months and once started could not be contained.
I am not the first to point out the eerie parallels to the current global political and military climate. In a sense, the world is already at war, past the equivalent point of no return with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Russia invaded Ukraine almost two years ago, and the conflict between the two countries has devolved into a brutal stalemate. Russia, similar to her internal dynamics in 1914, remains reeling from the fall of the Soviet Union and increasingly desperate to remain relevant in world affairs. Ukraine had been increasingly allying with Western Europe, which in Russia’s view, was an encroachment she simply couldn’t bear. Likewise, there is a similar network of complex alliances operating behind – and at times in front – of the scenes as the war in Ukraine grinds on. The United States and fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are actively opposing Russia, funneling billions of dollars of advanced weaponry and deploying specialized military resources to coordinate operations. Russia is not without allies of her own, largely avoiding the impact of sanctions by cultivating a relationship with China. China sees itself much as Germany did at the start of World War I, ready to take the leading role in world affairs from the United States, and with designs on Taiwan and other countries in the region. China and Russia both are aligned with Iran, a much smaller and weaker country, but one that has long been eager to dominate the Middle East, using various proxies and terrorist groups to assert their influence. Less than two weeks ago, one of those terrorist groups, Hamas, launched an unprecedentedly brutal assault on Iran’s long term enemy in the region, Israel, slaughtering 1,400 people. Israel is closely bound to the United States and other Western countries, almost all of which have promised aid in destroying Hamas whatever the cost. The United States has long regarded Iran as an enemy and has identified all of their various proxies as terrorist groups. Both countries have engaged in skirmishes, assassinations, and other low-grade conflicts for decades. The United States executed one of their chief military leaders as recently as 2019. Iran has attacked the US even more recently. Immediately following Hamas’ assault on Israel, Iranian proxies fired missiles and drones at coalition bases in Iraq and Syria more than a dozen times, injuring two dozen. The US has promised to hold Iran accountable and has struck two Iranian-backed facilities in response, claiming however ridiculously that these efforts are separate from Israel’s war with Hamas, though everyone knows they are not. Meanwhile, Hamas itself occupies a long disputed territory in the Gaza Strip, somewhat analogous to Serbia in 1914. Syria and Lebanon remain bound to Iran, both serving as proxies for their terrorist operations. Iran, however, also has its own adversaries in the region, Saudi Arabia chief among them. For its part, Saudi Arabia has been slowly but steadily forging the beginning of an alliance with Israel, following Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates normalizing relations with the Jewish state.
Generally speaking, alliances in the region are rapidly shifting exactly as they were in the early 20th century. It is impossible to predict how this tangled network will evolve in the future, but a few things are clear. There is a non-zero chance the situation will devolve into a true global conflict as it did in 1914. The pieces are already in place and if anything, events are even further along. The world is at war right now, only it seems to be unfolding in slow motion, hard to fully put in perspective in real time. Missiles are being launched, bombs are being dropped, and bullets are firing as we speak, however, and history is certain on one thing in this regard: Violence unleashes uncertainty and a single stray bullet can change the entire fate of the world. The War in Ukraine might be contained there now, but it would not remain so if a missile even accidently kills civilians in a NATO country. Iran’s drone and missile attacks on American interests in Iraq and Syria might seem like minor nuisances at the moment, until one significantly damages a base and kills US troops. Israel might well confine its efforts to eradicating Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but an attack from Hezbollah in Lebanon would open up an entire northern front and likely draw Iran into open conflict, prompting the United States, Western Europe, Russia, and China – not to mention Saudi Arabia and the entire Middle East – to far more clearly choose sides and proclaim their allegiance. Sadly, none of these scenarios, nor many others I can’t even imagine, are particularly far fetched. They are, in fact, almost probable at some point as long as these conflicts continue. Just as sadly, there is no one in a position of power across any of the countries involved with the diplomatic gravitas, foresight, might, and determination to pull the world back from the brink. The global leadership class in the free world today makes Woodrow Wilson look like Teddy Roosevelt, exhibiting a disturbing penchant to substitute words for action, a stunning lack of imagination, no fortitude worth mentioning, and an overinflated sense of their own worth, a deadly combination. It was only a few weeks ago that the national security apparatus in the United States effectively declared our Middle East policy a success. In the early days of the Ukraine War, we were just as confidently informed that the Russian economy was on the verge of collapse and they could not sustain the invasion for long. Earlier this summer, the same set of “striped pants boys” – to use President Harry Truman’s derogatory term for highly educated know-nothings – assured us the Ukraine spring counter offensive was almost certain to drive the Russian’s out. None of these things have come to pass, and if anything, the outcome has been the opposite of what was predicted. It is inconceivable that any of the current players involved could truly bring the world back from the brink of chaos.
There is another uncomfortable parallel to World War I. One of the reasons many thought a global war couldn’t happen was because there had been decades of relative peace in Europe, a full century since the entire continent was engaged in Napoleonic Wars. Conflicts in the meantime were confined to individual countries, smaller scale skirmishes, or occurred in other parts of the world. It was all too easy to believe this relative peace was Europe’s natural state of affairs. We see something similar today. The War on Terror dragged on for almost two decades, but remained relatively low-grade compared to the massive troop movements and casualties that had defined Vietnam, Korea, and the two World Wars. They were also largely contained to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The United States and Europe remained at something very close to peace, and have for decades, so long it seems like a great war could never happen again. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, marked the first true ground war in Europe since World War II. Hamas’ assault on Israel was the largest mass murder of Jews since the same period. These are milestones one never wants to recur, backed by tensions that have simmered in some cases for decades. I would not go so far as to say a conflagration is imminent, but as each day goes by, it becomes increasingly likely. Karl Marx said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. We see something similar at play now where desiccated leaders read from worn out scripts that say nothing of substance, at times studiously denying what everyone knows to be true, and then take no meaningful action as the words dimly echo into oblivion. There is a sense of watching some sad tragicomedy unfold on our various screens, wondering what unexpected and unanticipated catastrophe will happen next, oblivious to the reality that – as in 1914 – we might literally be one bullet away from worldwide destruction. Perhaps the only difference is the war will be televised this time.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 