 WASH:8766 | Pennsylvanian ( 406.1941 points)
|
Mon, August 21, 2023 10:53:01 PM UTC0:00
|
Haven't read Carter's book, but will have a gander. Thanks for that.
In addition to the politics of WWI, it gets into their personal relationships and the family dynamics that occurred prior to the war. There probably was a feeling between those leaders, and particularly the people in their countries - that war could be avoided because of their personal relationships.
Ironically enough (or perhaps not ironically at all), I think history would bear out the postulation that a strong monarchy's most valuable asset is perhaps its most damning liability -- the powerful monarch's ability to adapt national disposition to his or her own personality. History is rich with examples on both sides of that one, though I think the balance is a clear one and skewing towards the negative.
There is probably reasonable assumption that if Queen Victoria lived longer, she might have been able to stop World War I. All the cousins respected her and sought her approval. She probably stopped a war or two when she lived.
This is an interesting proposition. I'd have to read Carter and noodle it a bit. My armchair take is that Victoria might've been able to delay armed continental conflict via personal intervention, but that the manifestation of such a conflict would've transcended even the personalities involved, simply by virtue of the sheer tenuosness of the balance of power in Europe in the prelude and the interests at play independent of the respective monarchies.
Kaiser Wilhelm was a man child and had a tough time understanding the right behavior for situation.
I am strained to think of any modern parallel at all... nope, got nothing.
Haven't read Carter's book, but will have a gander. Thanks for that.
BrentinCO: In addition to the politics of WWI, it gets into their personal relationships and the family dynamics that occurred prior to the war. There probably was a feeling between those leaders, and particularly the people in their countries - that war could be avoided because of their personal relationships.
Ironically enough (or perhaps not ironically at all), I think history would bear out the postulation that a strong monarchy's most valuable asset is perhaps its most damning liability -- the powerful monarch's ability to adapt national disposition to his or her own personality. History is rich with examples on both sides of that one, though I think the balance is a clear one and skewing towards the negative.
BrentinCO: There is probably reasonable assumption that if Queen Victoria lived longer, she might have been able to stop World War I. All the cousins respected her and sought her approval. She probably stopped a war or two when she lived.
This is an interesting proposition. I'd have to read Carter and noodle it a bit. My armchair take is that Victoria might've been able to delay armed continental conflict via personal intervention, but that the manifestation of such a conflict would've transcended even the personalities involved, simply by virtue of the sheer tenuosness of the balance of power in Europe in the prelude and the interests at play independent of the respective monarchies.
BrentinCO: Kaiser Wilhelm was a man child and had a tough time understanding the right behavior for situation.
I am strained to think of any modern parallel at all... nope, got nothing.
| 
Joker:9757