A Culmination of European History: world war one

A Culmination of European History: world war one

A localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was almost a given due to Austro-Hungarian Empire's deterriorating world position and the Pan-Slavic, separationist movement in the Balkans, which garnered the support of Slavic elements in Russia, primarily due to Russia's own wishes for a warm water port. Imperial Russia's expansion eastwards is a historical theme that deserves attention - a "threat" only reinforced by the experiences of the Germans in the Napoleonic Wars and Thirty Year's War - where their precarious position in the center of Europe led to the decision for an active defense such as the Schlieffen Plan. France's fury over "losing" the Alsace and Lorraine territories in the Franco-Prussian War gave way to a new word, revanchism, and Germany failed to isolate the French after the League of the Three Emperors fell apart. Overall, the "problems" of 1914 relate directly to problems that are a culmination of historical developments in Europe.

Nationalism, Romanticism world war one

Nationalism, Romanticism world war one

The civilian leaders of the European powers found themselves facing a wave of nationalist zeal that had been building across Europe for years, as memories of war faded or were convoluted into a romantic fantasy that resonated in the public conscience. Frantic diplomatic efforts to mediate the Austrian-Serbian quarrel simply became irrelevant, as public opinion (and elite opinion) in key countries demanded war to uphold national honor. Almost all the belligerents envisioned there would be glorious consequences to follow the war. The patriotic enthusiasm, unity and ultimate euphoria that took hold during the "Spirit of 1914" was full of that very optimism regarding the post-war future. (and left a distinct mark on a young Adolf Hitler). Also, the Socialist-Democratic movement had begun to exert pressure on aristocrats throughout Europe, who optimistically hoped a victory would reunite the country.

Economic imperialism of world war one

Economic imperialism of world war one

Lenin famously asserted that the worldwide system of imperialism was responsible for the war. In this he drew upon the economic theories of English economist John A. Hobson who had earlier predicted the outcome of economic imperialism, or unlimited competition for expanding markets, would lead to a global military conflict in his 1902 book entitled 'Imperialism'[1]. This argument proved persuasive to leftists in the immediate wake of the war and helped explain the popularity of Marxism and Communism among those who suffered most in the conflict. Lenin's 1917 pamphlet "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" [2] made the argument, specifically, that large banking interests in the various capitalist-imperialist powers had pulled the strings in the various governments and led them into the war. Related to the idea of economic "shadow forces" working behind the scenes to escalate the conflict, was a thesis, particularly popular in the U.S., that various arms dealers and military industries had led the Great Powers into the war, this is the so-called "Merchants of Death" thesis. However, in the context of the period, it is unclear how these industries had a direct and specific influence on policy-making, and how this sector of the economy was more influential than other industrial and trade sectors, which would presumably be damaged through disrupted trade flows and the loss of markets by a large-scale global war.

Militarism and Authoritarianism :world war one

Militarism and Authoritarianism :world war one

President of the United States Woodrow Wilson and many Americans blamed the war on militarism, and this was a theme that figured prominently in anti-German propaganda throughout France, Great Britain and, from 1915 onwards, in the United States. The idea was that the Kaiser Wilhelm II and his autocratic Prussian government had a thirst for military power and glory, and such goals took priority over the needs and wishes of the people. The implication was that a "democratic" government would not have instigated the war, as it was widely proposed that Germany was ultimately responsible. True peace required the abdication of such rulers, the end of the aristocratic system, and consequently, the end of militarism. Wilson fought a "war to end all wars", explaining, "I cannot consent to take part in the negotiation of a peace which does not include freedom of the seas because we are pledged to fight not only to do away with Prussian militarism but with militarism everywhere. Neither could I participate in a settlement which did not include league of nations because peace would be without any guarantee except universal armament which would be intolerable." [October 30, 1918 in Herbert Hoover, Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson p 47] Wilson also acknowledged what he called British and French militarism, hoping his plans for the League of Nations would be able to secure a permanent peace.

Naval supremacy was a goal of Britain and Germany, both following American Admiral Mahan's influential thesis that control of the oceans was vital to a great nation, which therefore had to have a great fleet. In the context of the social-Darwinistic spirit in Germany, economic and military conflict between "races" or nationalities was seen to be inevitable by many military leaders, and the prestige of attaining to or preserving world power was an important consideration for politicians not only for relative international power considerations but domestic satisfaction ones. Germany's decision to increase its navy might is the prime example of this. Not only did increasing naval might serve to channel latent industrial potential into increasing relative power and eroding Britain's hegemony of the seas, the navy served as a national icon which could harness domestic aspirations for "weltmacht" or world power status. However, this led to military rivalry with Britain, which in turn increased its naval might and became less and less favorable toward Germany

Plans, Distrust and Mobilization: world war one

Plans, Distrust and Mobilization: world war one

Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the war plans of each power automatically escalated the conflict until it was out of control. Fritz Fischer and his followers have emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of Germany's Schlieffen Plan, which outlined how Germany would defend itself in the event of a two front war. If Germany was at war with both France and Russia, it must quickly eliminate one or the other from combat in order to stand a chance at winning the war. Time was of the essence. Due to French fortifications along the border with Germany, the plan called for a violation of Belgium's, and possibly the Netherlands' neutrality. In a greater context, France's own Plan XVII, called for an offensive thrust into the industrial Ruhr Valley that would cripple the German ability to wage war.

Russia's revised Plan XIX implied the mobilization of armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany. All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs of all the belligerent nations were anxious to capitalize on early offensive maneuvers to seize decisive victories. These military general staffs had elaborate mobilization plans with precise timetables, none more so than Germany, for whom it was decisive to consolidate victory against France before facing the slower-mobilizing Russia. Once the mobilization orders were issued it was understood by both generals and statesman alike that there was little or no possibility of turning back. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, resulting in delays from hours to even days.

Arms Races and Alliances in world war one

Arms Races and Alliances in world war one

Another cause of the war was the building of alliances and the related arms race. An example of the latter is the launch of the HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary battleship that rendered all previous warships obsolete as "pre-dreadnoughts" upon its introduction. Ironically, this weakened Britain's power as a seafaring nation and sparked a major naval arms race in shipbuilding, as the new type of vessel opened up a brand-new chapter in naval warfare, annihilating the old status-quo. The major participants in the race were Britain and Germany, tying in with the concept of new imperialism which gave way to the need for alliances. Overall, nations in the Triple Entente became fearful of the Triple Alliance and vice versa. Paul Kennedy is the historian who has most recently promulgated this thesis.

Guilt of Austria-Hungary and Germany

Guilt of Austria-Hungary and Germany

Early explanations, prominent in the 1920s, stressed the official version of responsibility as described in the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Trianon. This alleviated the victors from the consequential guilt of what turned out to be a costly and fruitless bloodbath and was not a baseless accusation; it was Austria, backed by Berlin, that attacked Serbia on July 29 and it was Germany that invaded Belgium on August 3, in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan. Though drastically simplified, such an overview clearly portrays Germany and Austria-Hungary as the aggressors, and therefore, those bearing responsibility. Not surprisingly, this resulted in the humiliation of Germany, which included the demand that Germany pay all the war costs (including pensions) of the Allies. This directly affected the global economy and indirectly contributed to the Great Depression.

The War Guilt clause, or Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, was a major issue in internal German politics in the 1920s and 1930s and worked to the favor of the Nazis, who rode the coattails of German nationalism all the way to the Reichstag. The two became largely indistinguishable. Many prominent British figures, especially economist John Maynard Keynes, rejected the Guilt clause that the French avidly supported. Since 1960, the idea that Germany was primarily responsible was revived by academics such as Fritz Fischer, Imanuel Geiss, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Wolfgang Mommsen, and V.R. Berghahn. Fischer, for example, emphasized that Germany wanted to control most of Europe or at the very least, unite it through Germany. However, as Fischer points out, diplomatic efforts to do so often centered around Anglo-Germanic cooperation. Likewise, aside from small Germanic territorial enclaves in Belgium, it is unclear exactly what the Germans had to gain in a war, whereas the French and British had territorial and economic-related ambitions, respectively.

Causes of world war one

Causes of world war one

On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip, of the Black Hand Gang, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand while he was visiting Sarajevo. The Archduke was there to assert imperial authority over a disputed province. Though this assassination started the cascade of events that quickly produced war, the causes of the war were multiple and complex. Historians and political scientists have grappled with this question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus. Some of the more prominent explanations are outlined below.

Introduction about world war one

Introduction about world war one

  

World War I is infamous for the protracted stalemate of trench warfare along the Western Front, embodied within a system of opposing manned trenches and fortifications (separated by a "No man's land") running from the North Sea to the border of Switzerland. Hostilities were also prosecuted, however, by more dynamic invasion and battle, by fighting at sea and - for the first time - in and out from the air. Also, there were some battles that foreshadowed the rapid movement of WWII, take for example the Battle of St. Mihel in 1918. Here, within a matter of one day, American troops, supported by tanks, airplanes, and artillery, advanced over 20 miles, clearing a salient that had been a thorn in the side of the French army since 1914. More than 9 million soldiers died on the various battlefields, and nearly that many more in the participating countries' home fronts on account of food shortages and genocide committed under the cover of various civil wars and internal conflicts. In World War I, only some 5% of the casualties (directly caused by the war) were civilian - in World War II, this figure approached 50%.

Ultimately, World War I created a decisive break with the old world order that had emerged after the Napoleonic Wars, as modified by the mid-19th century national revolutions, the processes of European national unification and European colonialism. Three European land empires were shattered and subsequently dismembered to varying degrees: the German, the Austro-Hungarian and the Russian. In the Balkans and the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire experienced the same fate. Three European imperial dynasties, represented by the Hohenzollern, the Habsburg and the Romanov families in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia respectively, also fell during the war.

World War I witnessed the first advent of Communism as a means of government in Russia. The following decades would see the transformation of the old Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a global power. In the east, the demise of the Ottoman Empire paved the way for the states such as Republic of Turkey and a number of successor states and territories throughout the Middle East. In Central Europe, the new states of Czechoslovakia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Yugoslavia were born and Austria, Hungary and Poland were re-created. Shortly after the war, in 1923, Fascists came to power in Italy; in 1933, 14 years after the war, Nazism took over Germany. Problems unresolved or created by the war would be highly important factors in the outbreak, within 20 years, of World War II.

The First World War

The First World War

World War I, also known as the First World War, and (before 1939) the Great War, the War of the Nations, and the War to End All Wars, was a world conflict lasting from August 1914 to the final Armistice (cessation of hostilities) on November 11, 1918. The Allied Powers (led by Britain  and France, and, after 1917, the United States) defeated the Central Powers (led by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire), and led to the collapse of four empires and a radical change in the map of Europe. The Allied powers are sometimes referred to as the Triple Entente, and the Central Powers are sometimes referred to as the Triple Alliance.

Age of Steam Trains second Part

Age of Steam Trains second Part

The Golden Age of Steam Trains Part02 from http://variantvintage.blogspot.c on Vimeo.

Age of Steam Trains first Part

Age of Steam Trains first Part

The Golden Age of Steam Trains Part01 from http://variantvintage.blogspot.c on Vimeo.

Classic Steam trains 1920s to 1940s

Classic Steam trains 1920s to 1940s

History OF CAMERA

History OF CAMERA

The technology that the modern camera is based on was created several hundred years ago. Although the ancient ideas were far away from the types of cameras that we know, they were well ahead of their time in relation to the technology and materials that they had at their disposal. It wasn’t until 1885 when George Eastman created the modern photograph film technology that made cameras a convenient product for consumers. Eastman also created the very first Kodak  camera which served to further advance the camera industry and its popularity among consumers.

The first Kodak camera was sold with the film already loaded inside and consumers needed to send the entire unit to the company to get their film developed. The company would then reload the camera with new film and send it back to the consumer so they could take more pictures with it. But this system did not last very long before more advancements were made.

In the first year of the 20th century, 1901 George Eastman capitalized on his own technology and created the Brownie. This new camera was the first one that had the capability of taking snapshots and it was small enough to be convenient for camera owners to carry around with them. As a result of its popularity, affordability and small size, the Brownie was the preferred camera that families could take with them on vacations and special occasions to create memories that would last a lifetime. The Brownie was so popular that it continued to be produced and marketed well into the 1960s.

In 1914, Oskar Barnack experimented with 35mm film that was used to create movies and films. His goal was to create a 35mm film that could be used in cameras to create still pictures rather than motion pictures. Though he began this technology in 1914, the troubles that occurred with the onset of World War I made further advancements impossible for the next several years. Twenty years later, the Kodak Company began working on this technology and made several advancements that made it more convenient for average consumers to use. The Retina I by the Kodak Company was cheaper than other models with similar technology, but it was still more expensive than other mass produced cameras of the era.

While many companies were trying to create better technology for their cameras, a new type of camera jetted onto the scene in 1948. The Polaroid was an instant camera that attracted many consumers because of its instant gratification capabilities. People could take a picture with the Polaroid camera and have their photo in a matter of minutes. Even though it was more expensive than the other cameras of the time, it was still one of the biggest selling models because people enjoyed having their pictures just moments after taking them. It was a novelty at first, but it soon became a luxury that many people had to have. Even today, the Polaroid camera is one of the best selling models in the camera industry because of its affordable price and instant capabilities.

In recent years, the digital technology even spilled over into the camera industry. Even though the predecessors of today’s digital cameras began in 1972 with a Texas Instruments prototype, the true digital camera as we know them today was not produced until 1988 in Japan and later in 1991 in the United States. Even after years of technological advances, though, digital cameras still cost thousands of dollars well into the following decade. As a result, only professional photographers and others with high-paying careers had access to quality digital cameras. The pixel technology and other aspects of the digital camera eventually became less expensive and mass produced soon after and they were also more affordable as a result. Today, you can get a decent digital camera for less than $500 with many different features and options.

Cameras have helped to reshape our history because we can actually see photographs of things that have happened. We can get a better idea of events through still pictures and videos, too. The adage “A picture is worth a thousand words” is not very far off from the way that cameras have helped to revolutionize the way we see our world and our surroundings.

History OF OUR RADIO

History OF OUR  RADIO

Radios have been one of the more important technological devices for more than a century. From their beginnings in the early 1800s until the new developments in recent years, radios have helped to provide communication as well as entertainment throughout the society of many cultures.

The early years of the radio technology began early in the 1800s, but the actual invention cannot be attributed to only one person. During this time period, several inventors created and improved upon the technology that became the radio as we know it today. Once referred to as “wireless telegraphy,” radio technology has always included electronic signaling between a transmitter and one or more receivers. In order to accomplish this, there are many several pieces of technology that fit together.

The first major breakthrough in the radio technology occurred in 1895 when the first patent for the radio was granted to Guglielmo Marconi. Though the idea was around, the actual devices that made the technology possible was not readily available until 1901. For this era, the radio technology was limited to communications with ships in case of an emergency. In 1907, the first commercial transatlantic radio service was created. From there, the technology continued to draw interested engineers and inventors from all sorts of industries.

During the late 1800s, Nikola Tesla made several advances that got people interested in the radio technology. In 1893, he presented the idea in a lecture to many astonished people in St. Louis, Missouri. It was here that he actually demonstrated the wireless radio technology that other people were trying to produce in the form of an effective and reliable device.

With many great minds working on this idea, it wasn’t long before radio stations began to pop up throughout the world. In the United States, there is speculation about the actual first radio station. Much of the debate lies in the actual definition of what a radio station constitutes as well as what they were supposed to do. KCBS is often regarded as the very first commercial radio station in the country, but there are others that produced regular radio programming and other services around the same decade. KDKA in Pittsburgh, for instance, began producing communication over the radio waves in 1920. In 1919, a University of Wisconsin-Madison radio station boasted the first human speech to go out over the airwaves. It was only a matter of two years before music was one of the more common uses that people were using the radio for.

The first radio frequency used was the AM frequency in 1906 during World War I. Because of its reliability, it was also the most popular frequency for broadcasting beginning in 1920. The AM frequency remained the dominant frequency for broadcasting for over three decades. This period is often referred to as the Golden Age of Radio. Radio stations during this time produced a wide variety of entertaining programs. In addition to music, radio stations also played dramatic episodes of programs, such as Amos ‘n’ Andy and Superman. Radios also became the preferred method for communicating the news of the day.

While the AM frequency was popular for broadcasting throughout the 1950s and beyond, researchers began developing the FM in the 1940s as an alternative to FM. This method became popular during the 1960s and took hold throughout the 1970s. It was more popular than the AM signal because it could transmit on any frequency. Although its original purpose was intended for classical music lovers and educational purposes, the FM method was a favorite for rock music in the 1960s. It wasn’t until 1978, however, that the FM programming had more listeners than the AM.

In recent years, radio has made even more developments that have made listening to your favorite music even easier. With a simple internet connection, you can listen to streaming audio from almost any radio station all over the world. A new trend in radio broadcasting is also the podcast. This is where individuals put together a recording that resembles a radio show and then post it online for anybody to listen to.

In addition to these developments, there is also the creation of the subscription-based radio services. Sirius and XM radio are not controlled by federal regulations in the same way that normal airwaves are governed. This gives both listeners and broadcasters more options to fit their listening pleasure. Made popular by Howard Stern, these radio services are also commercial-free, which is another great advancement in the radio industry.

With the advancements that have just been made in recent years, there is no telling where the radio technology will lead to next. Instead of television, the wide variety of radio programs are becoming more enticing to people throughout the world because of its availability and simplicity.