Thursday 25 January 2018

The Most Influential Individual of the 20th Century

Behold the man- seems more of a boy, to me

If you had to nominate the individual, who you think, was the most influential person of the 20th century, who would you choose? When I mean influential I mean the person that substantially influenced world events at the time and whose historical legacy lingers, nay insinuates, today. That is a terrible burden for one individual to carry. And you could argue that our modern world has been shaped by many people and forces too numerous to count. But that said, is there one single individual who has had a disproportionate effect? And I don't mean someone who actively participated in many of the cardinal or principle events of the 20th century, I mean someone who set the scene, someone who started a sequence of cataclysmic reactions which eventually meandered to the world we inhabit today.

I suspect many people would select Hitler, or perhaps Stalin, or even Churchill and while it is true that these men played a major role in the world scene since the 1930s, I would argue that their influence has been derivative. I would state that events prior to this period were responsible for how these men reacted to unfolding events during their tenure.

I would also contend that events, and most importantly a single/singular event, by one man in June of 1914 had a seminal effect on subsequent world history. If you are following my line of reasoning you are already contemplating the Great War. While it is true that in 1914, prior to one fateful June day, there existed political tensions between the Great Powers, there seemed no reason why the world should descend into Armageddon. In fact, if anything tensions had eased and there seemed no imminent prospect of a general war. You might want to read my post concerning the military alliances and the balance of power during the early years of the 20th century. Alliances meant to make the war between the Great Powers unthinkable, but as we know this principle failed to produce peace once the cascade of treaty obligations kicked in.

Let me introduce my nomination, Gavrilo Princep, a 19-year-old, idealistic, nationalistic Bosnian student with dreams of South Slav unification and independence from Austrian shackles. On June 28, 1914, the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, the heir apparent to the ramshackle Empire visited the Bosnian city of Sarajevo to observe military manoeuvres; it was an unwise move. The Empire had annexed Bosnia in 1908 and the date chosen for the visit was inauspicious as the 28th June coincided with the anniversary of a major defeat of the Southern Slavs by the Turks in 1389. More than one assassin lurked on the streets of Sarajevo that day. Earlier a bomb had been thrown at the Archduke's motorcade, but Ferdinand and his wife were uninjured, although others in the stately procession were seriously wounded. By a strange stroke of fate, later in the day, Ferdinand’s car took a wrong turn as it left Sarajevo town hall and by happenstance, Princip was standing nearby as the car reversed to regain the route. He came out of the shadows and fired two shots mortally wounding the Archduke and his wife. 

The deaths resulted in Austria-Hungary declaring war on the neighbouring state of Serbia which was suspected of state sponsored involvement in the assassination, however, official Serbian involvement was never proven. As is often the case with major historical events, the spark caught light due to an action which, in hindsight, should never have had the calamitous consequences of a world war. If cool heads amongst the respective leaders of nations had prevailed and if a modicum of competent diplomacy had ensued, the matter, although grave, should not have set Europe afire. In particular, the Austria-Hungarians bear much of the blame as they presented the Serbs with a humiliating ultimatum which the Serbs accepted almost in its entirety. However, the ultimatum was just an Austria-Hungarian pretext for war. The Austria-Hungarians counted on German support and a vague assurance of support from the intelligent, but politically inept and volatile German Kaiser made them bold beyond their means. The Germans, and especially the Kaiser receive opprobrium for not reining in their weaker ally. Europe seemed to slip into war without conscious effort or restraint and the declaration of war by the Austria-Hungarians triggered a cascade of alliances culminating in a war between the Great Powers one month after the Archduke's death.

Poor Princip died in prison in 1918 of malnutrition and tuberculosis. His ambition for a united Slav state free of domination came about with the formation of Yugoslavia during the political maelstrom following the end of the Great War. Surely this idealistic young man could never have foreseen and perhaps never condone his baleful influence on world history.

I am arguing that the Great War set our world on its modern course and provided an heirloom with which we struggle/juggle with today. The First War set the scene for the second great conflict, the influence of which cannot be denied in our modern context. Some would say that the intervening years between the wars were a mere armistice; a period of war without arms.


Princip appeared on the world stage, for but a moment changed it, and then disappeared from history stage left. But he had changed the world and we live with the cultural, geopolitical and technical consequences to this day. And this why, Gavrilo Princip demands to be the most influential individual of the 20th century. I’m reluctant to consider Princip, the ‘Father of the Modern World’, but he certainly deserves to be called his naive, much younger brother.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc

Listen and weep


8 comments:

  1. Can't fault you there, although Gavrilo was like the student activists today: full of romantic ideology but a bit short on seeing implications and consequences whilst being cynically used and manipulated by Bosnian police/military.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea Ted, idealism is a powerful human motivation, for good or ill, generally for ill. As for Princip, an idealistic young man willing to spend his life for his dream. Perhaps a pawn in the 'Great Game', frankly I don't think we will ever discover the truth. Regardless, we must live with the consequencies.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’ve always thought that this opportunist assassination changed the course of history, but I’m not sure that a war wouldn’t have happened anyway. The German Schlieffen Plan was formulated in 1905, almost a decade before the start of the conflict, with the prime object of quickly neutralising France by attacking her by going through Belgium and then going on to conquer Russia. This plan was offensive rather than defensive, so the Keizer and his generals were clearly itching for a scrap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an interesting question. The Scheifflan plan was an audacious solution by the Germans in response to a war on two fronts. Mobilisation had to be synonymous with war, unlike any other state. France and Russia could initiate mobilisation and then stop at the frontiers, the Germans didn't have this option. They needed to act quickly and defeat the French before the Russian juggernaut began to move. The Germans thought they could not sustain a war on two fronts and they were wrong in this regard. The Scheiflan plan was born from this dilemma. As for the question: 'the Germans were itching for war'. I am not convinced this was the case. Of course we will never know the answer to this question so I'm happy to concede that you may be right. I think at that time Germany was set to become the dominant power in Europe due to economic and industrial forces. Like all powers the Germans realised that a general war would be incredibly destructive. Perhaps they were willing to take the gamble that they were going to be the winners in a Great War. Even if the Germans were spoiling for a fight they still needed a good reason to set the world afire. The bellicose Kaiser, tried to find a way out of war toward the end of the crisis or at least limit the participants, especially with regard to Britain. I might do a post on this very question. As an aside, I've been listening to a podcast on the Great War, narrated by an American historian called Dan Carlin. I think it is called, 'Blueprint for Armageddon. I recommend you should listen to it; it is highly insightful and thought provoking. Every Saturday afternoon, I sit on my deck, with my son and a beer and listen to the podcast.

      Delete
  4. I think you are looking at too small a scale, when it comes to chaos created by one single person, look no further than Mohammed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right of course, there are individuals which changed the course of history: Mohammed, Jesus, Alexander the Great. I chose a particular period for a reason as it has resonance with today. If I had to choose one man who had the most influence on the world stage, I would choose Ghengis the Great Khan. Perhaps an inspiration for a post- let's see.

      Delete
  5. StamiMax For many people this can be the best replacement of the get jacked fast because in period it takes to drive to and from the gym you should have already gotten a workout in. Rest Must make sure to give your body enough to be able to recuperate and rebuild the muscles. http://jackedmuscleextremeadvice.com/stamimax/

    ReplyDelete