#Sophie Duchess of Hohenberg
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
royal-confessions · 2 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
“I was so happy when I learned that Jaroslav was friends with Franz Ferdinand! I was really worried that Sophie wouldn't be able to see her siblings (Jaroslav married Sophie's sister Maria Pia) because the Austro-Hungarian court was really classist, but I'm glad that wasn't the case, at least not entirely.” - Submitted by Anonymous
10 notes · View notes
adini-nikolaevna · 1 year ago
Text
Tumblr media
Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, with her two sons, Prince Max and Prince Ernst, ca. 1912.
17 notes · View notes
eirene · 3 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
Sophie Chotek, as Duchess of Hohenberg, 1910
Franz Dvorak
253 notes · View notes
thepaintedchateau · 2 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
...Sophie, the Duchess of Hohenberg was married to Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne...their assassination in Sarajevo sparked a series of events that led, four weeks later, to World War I...
75 notes · View notes
toddlohenry · 18 days ago
Text
Powder Keg: Europe 1900 to 1914
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand[a] was one of the key events that led to World War I. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were assassinated on 28 June 1914 by Bosnian Serb student Gavrilo Princip. They were shot at close range while being driven through Sarajevo, the provincial capital of…
0 notes
neutralgray · 11 months ago
Text
A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Part 12
Full Essay Guide link: XX
(Patriot - Chapter 14 | People - Chapter 14 | True - Chapter 22)
The United States & The Great War in Europe
The United States continued to grow in bold new ways as they ushered in the 20th century. The Ford Motor Company was responsible for designing the first motorized automobiles. The Wright Brothers created a successful plane model that could sustain temporary flight and would then continue to improve on the model in the coming years with their Wright Flyer II and III models. Women's suffrage was becoming a more common talking point across the nation. Banking reforms led to the Federal Reserve Act, which helped establish 12 new federal banks across the country. The United States was an economic powerhouse but despite their growing economic influence, they lacked the military power to match. In 1916, two years into the "Great War" across the ocean, the United States had only the 17th largest military. This would soon change.
The infamous assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, is often understood as the "start" of the war we now call "World War I." The assassination outraged Austria-Hungary and led to a series of events in which political alliances created a schism between world powers that were now in conflict. The United States initially abstained. The U.S. was no stranger to conflict with European powers but generally these conflicts came about when there was potential significant gain for the United States. A war of this sudden magnitude did not seem particularly beneficial nor were the American people thrilled about the prospect of another war after the political storm that followed the Cuban and Caribbean imperialist conflicts.
The Great War was almost immediately one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. After the first three months of the war, almost all of the original standing British Army had been wiped out, with droves of fresher, younger faces taking their place. New tools of war such as flamethrowers and poison gases created new ways of destroying and demoralizing the enemy. Outdated infantry practices led to the slaughter of thousands of young men who were faced with new instruments of death such as machine guns, barbed wire, and trench warfare.
The United States claimed to be neutral when it came to European affairs, but the reality of that position is dubious. Wilson had imposed a ban in 1914 on loans to warring countries, however this ban was later lifted and powerful affluent individuals such as J. P. Morgan could loan out money directly to the powers they supported. The United States received a boom of profits from selling to both Allied and Central powers, but bankers and profiteers such as J. P. Morgan generally favored the Allies because the American economy was closely tied to trade with England. England also blacklisted American companies legally trading with Central powers, incentivizing companies to cease trade with those countries.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency with the slogan "He Kept us out of War." Despite that slogan, he would not keep his country out of the war for much longer. The previous year, German u-boats torpedoed and sank the passenger line RMS Lusitania, killing approximately 1200 people, 128 of which were American citizens. This began a shift in public opinion, with many thinking this attack needed retaliation. The sinking of Lusitania would also be heavily used in American propaganda meant to encourage military enlistment. In April 1917, Germany declared that they would sink ANY ships suspected of bringing military supplies or aid to their enemies, indicating they had no intention of ceasing their attacks on non-combatant ships. This outward position of hostility was an inherent challenge to the United States and its interest in continued trade with the Allies. Detailed manifests of the Lusitania did reveal, however, that the German suspicions were not wrong. The ship had been carrying military supplies, meaning the allied powers were potentially using civilian lives as shields to move their supply line.
Anti-war meetings held by socialists and other groups of interest bloomed across the country, especially in the mid-west. Despite some wave of opposition like this, though, the American machine sped up in the direction of war. George Creel, a veteran newspaperman, became a propagandist for United States, setting up the Committee on Public Information and sponsoring over 75000 speakers. The Department of Justice sponsored a group of private citizens known as the American Protective League, who made it their mission to identify, expose, and counteract suspected German sympathizers. The War Industries Board (WIB) helped government and private companies work together to profit off joint interest in the war effort. Anti-war writings, socialist papers, and general leftist literature were also suppressed by the American Post.
Several acts were passed into law directly related to the United States formally entering the war on the side of the Allies. The Immigration Restriction Act was passed in 1917, limiting foreign influence by requiring all immigrants to pass basic reading tests. The Espionage, Sabotage, and Sedition of Acts of 1917-18 extended what was considered espionage or sabotage, including criminalizing anti-military speech and criticisms of the Constitution. This blatant contradiction to the supposed free speech afforded in the Bill of Rights displays how malleable the law can be during times of great strife. Lastly, the Selective Service Act of 1917 enforced the draft, i.e. a mandatory registration of all males of certain ages to be potentially pulled for military service. Very few American citizens (only around 75000 or so) willingly signed up for service when the United States entered the European war. Now voluntary service didn't matter. The draft gave the United States plenty of bodies to throw at the war effort and the new laws governing free speech ensured any voice of dissent could simply be jailed for un-American behavior.
The United States forces helped bolster Allied war efforts after a long and exhausting campaign. The U.S. had entered late, avoiding the mass casualties other countries suffered, but they were not without loss. During the war, the United States lost approximately 112,432 people compared to 1.8 million Germans, 1.7 million Russians, 1.4 million French, 1.3 million Austrians, and 947 thousand British. The signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 would end the Great War, with much of the blame going to Germany due to that nation being the most prominent force of the Central alliance.
The war had dramatically reshaped European powers. Austria-Hungary was soon dismantled, with its territory going to other nations. Russia faced a civil war during the conflict which led to the rise of communism as the central power of Russia. Germany was left battered; peace treaties required the country to pay for many damages and required a severe reduction of their standing military.
Under president Woodrow Wilson, the idea of a "league of nations" was born. Wilson believed this league of nations could help guide world powers and outlined 14 significant points that he believed would lead to sustained peace in Europe. For the sake of ease, I've used an outside source (Worldwar.org/learn/peace/fourteen-points) to summarize Wilson's points:
Open diplomacy without secret treaties
Economic free trade on the seas during war and peace
Equal trade conditions
Decrease armaments among all nations
Adjust colonial claims
Evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia and allow it to define its own independence
Belgium to be evacuated and restored
Return of Alsace-Lorraine region and all French territories
Readjust Italian borders
Austria-Hungary to be provided an opportunity for self-determination
Redraw the borders of the Balkan region creating Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade in the Dardanelles
Creation of an independent Polish state
Creation of the League of Nations
These 14 points were cause for much debate between the world powers as they argued for or against the most fundamental principles required for the maintaining of peace and (potentially) the maintaining of the current power structure.
Despite Wilson's heavy hand in the initial conception of a "League of Nations," the United States itself did not join the League. The U.S., despite its intervention, continued to practice isolationism.
This period of time may not have impacted the population of the United States the same way it had many European populations, but the influence of war-time events was certainly significant in the direction of the United States both as a country and as a culture. The United States tried to help the non-communist forces during Russia's civil war but failed to stop communism from taking root. This Russian movement is often referred to as the Bolshevik Revolution. The revolution coupled with an event in April, 1919 where over 20 packaged bombs were sent out by suspected communist groups led to a "Red Scare," i.e. a social panic over the potential influence of communist ideas, leading to unjustified witch hunts for suspected communist sympathizers. Communism and socialism became associated with anti-war sentiment, foreign influence, and intellectual trickery.
IWW meeting halls were often targeted during the war and the Red Scare only amplified the pressure and opposition felt by anti-capitalist leaders. The state displayed its willingness to lay down the law, use the law, and then ignore peoples' demands to silence voices of radical opposition. In no better case was this displayed than the case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian anarchist immigrants who were arrested and charged with a break-in and murder that they almost certainly did not commit. Despite constant proclamations of innocence and public pressure from interested groups, the two men were found guilty on little evidence, condemned to die, and were forced to endure 7 years in prison before they were executed by way of electrocution.
Besides the "Great War," other social movements in the United States at this time included the Prohibition movement and the call for women's suffrage. The Prohibition movement was influenced by many active groups such as the Scientific Temperance Instruction Movement, the Anti-Saloon League, and the Women's Christian Temperance Union. This movement had been mounting for decades and finally led to the 18th amendment, proposed in 1917 and ratified in 1919. The 18th amendment declared the production, transport, and sale of alcohol were criminal offenses.
The women's suffrage movement had also been mounting for decades and led to the 19th amendment. The amendment was introduced in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. This amendment prohibited any discrimination based on sex when voting, giving women the right to vote in the United States. This new legal right was, of course, largely afforded to white women and did not affect the many minority populations in the United States. Still, it was at least a progressive direction that extended the influence the people had on their government. "We the people" did not yet include everyone in its poetic blanket, but its meaning had come a long way from simply white affluent landowners.
Final Thoughts:
I've tried to maintain neutrality on my opinion of these books and the words therein. I have arguably not done a great job at this and fully admit my own general left-wing biases. That said, I've been open about these biases from the start of this essay project. It's becoming increasingly more difficult as we get closer to the present, however, to not simply laugh or outright loathe some of Schweikart and Allen's focused points.
In this chapter Schweikart makes a strange point on how propaganda is not meant to be influential in the sense often thought of. Instead, Schweikart proposes that the point of propaganda is to prepare the public for the necessity of a "grim task" and this is only natural because war is inherently understood as an "abnormal" event. These words effectively condemn the unfortunate violence of war while outlining the potential justification of it. I am of the personal view that there certainly are agendas and political powers worth dismantling with violence if that power is not kind to its people, however Schweikart seems to be proposing a state of plausible deniability here (at least in my view). Essentially, war is bad but if we're doing it there must be a good reason and propaganda exists to make the people accept this. It is a very strange stance. As I said, I do believe in the use of violence as a potential tool for dismantling evil powers but I wouldn't say I'm "pro-violence" and I'd certainly never say I'm "pro-propaganda," but the points made in A Patriot's History read as pro-propaganda to me.
Another frustrating point is that it often feels like the whole point of A Patriot's History is simply to "set the record straight" in the wake of books like Zinn's A People's History. Zinn often combats a general historical narrative but Zinn focuses on using personal sources such as newspapers and records of the periods discussed as he continues to explore the labor and rights movements of each decade. Schweikart sets up points then discusses his own speculative opinions against an outward general "them" such as "liberal historians." One example of this is when Schweikart and Allen go on a brief tangent about the issues Prohibition gives these "liberal historians." Schweikart states that Progressives often did not attempt to pursue policies based on morals and values but the Prohibition movement, which often had a lot of Progressive support, is seen as a clear counter to that. This proposes Progressivism and social Darwinism as a sort of points system with black and white values rather than as the complicated, messy, and potentially hypocritical movements they were. It's natural in human history for social movements to often be logically contrary to the moral maxims of their supposed base because humans are often contrary and these ideas are not founded by a homogeneous group of people. These ideas come together through the passions of many people with many different experiences. Schweikart seems to see some kind of "gotcha" moment for Progressives but fails to see that even if Prohibition may have been an atypical cause, most progressive ideas are rooted in a sense of "morals and values," these values are just often less religiously coded and apply more to the state than they do individuals.
Schweikart also makes a random dig at the Planned Parenthood organization when discussing suffrage, largely rambling about Planned Parenthood following many of the ideas of radical feminist Margaret Sanger but noting that the organization supports abortion, something Sanger supposedly opposed. However, Sanger also supported eugenics, which modern Planned Parenthood has unquestionably condemned in their mission. I personally have no strong feelings on Planned Parenthood but from what little I do know, I think their objectives are generally good ones. I have no obvious personal stake or passion for them, however. I say all this to establish that I'm not trying to go after Schweikart for potentially attacking "leftist" groups. I merely want to outline how sorely out of place this mentioning of Planned Parenthood felt. It's not dwelt on for very long but I suspect that's by clever design. The subject is mentioned briefly, almost only in passing, but by bringing the subject up at all when it simply has zero relevance, it feels particularly revealing for how Schweikart wants his words to be read and how his audience should feel when reflecting on history that leads to the modern stage.
To close, World War 1 was an influence on American politics but its shadow fell much darker and longer on the European countries affected. As socialist voices were choked out by patriotic war mongers, women enjoyed the right to vote for the first time in American history. The moral value of "freedom" is an important cornerstone in understanding the messy reality of American politics and how a country can blatantly fear intellectual voices on political theory while celebrating the extended rights for its people to influence government with the ballot box. Freedom is an abstract and complex idea in the minds of Americans. It is the promise of a land where one can work their way up to success by their own hand. It is the idea that a company is free of unfair government restrictions to their profiteering. It is the hope of a better future for many wary immigrants hoping to find their fortune in the great "melting pot." It is the support of imperial regimes to extend the requisitions demanded by a great "empire of liberty." It is all of these contradictions at once, and it is why this empire is worth studying and understanding.
0 notes
empress-alexandra · 3 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria with his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, ca. 1900. And Gavrilo Princip - the man who killed them in 1914 which triggered the outbreak of WW1.
63 notes · View notes
royal-confessions · 2 months ago
Text
Tumblr media
“If I could invite any three royals, living or dead, to dinner, I'd invite Joséphine de Beauharnais, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg. I'd just say to Franz and Sophie "So, you two dislike Alfred, 2nd Prince of Montenuovo. He was a grandson of," here I'd take a dramatic pause and turn to Joséphine, "Marie Louise of Parma. Discuss." And then enjoy the chaos and Alfred-bashing, lol.” - Submitted by Anonymous
13 notes · View notes
adini-nikolaevna · 4 years ago
Text
Tumblr media
Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg by Dvorak.
190 notes · View notes
quotesfrommyreading · 2 years ago
Text
When the governor, seated in front of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, discovered that they were going the wrong way, he ordered their driver to stop. The driver brought the car to a halt, shifted gears, and prepared to turn around. By a coincidence that has reverberated down the decades, he had stopped less than five feet from Gavrilo Princip, nineteen years old, the one remaining member of the assassination gang and its leader. Princip pulled our his revolver, pointed it at the stopped car, and fired twice.
Husband and wife remained upright and calm in their seats. The governor, seeing no signs of injury and thinking that they must have escaped harm, shouted again at the driver, telling him to turn around.
Suddenly a thin stream of blood came spurting out of Franz Ferdinand’s mouth.
“For heaven’s sake!” cried Sophie. “What’s happened to you?” Then she slumped over, her head falling between her husband’s knees. The military governor thought she had fainted, but somehow the archduke knew better.
“Sophie dear, Sophie dear, don’t die!” he called. “Stay alive for our children!” Other members of the party surrounded him, struggling to open his tunic to see where he had been shot. “It’s nothing,” he told them weakly. “It’s nothing.”
  —  A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918 (G. J. Meyer)
5 notes · View notes
venicepearl · 4 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg (1 March 1868 – 28 June 1914) was the wife of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Their assassination in Sarajevo sparked a series of events that eventually led to World War I.
36 notes · View notes
pokadandelion · 4 years ago
Text
Tumblr media
Sophie Duchess of Hohenberg (1868 - 1914)
8 notes · View notes
jagiellonczyk · 6 years ago
Text
Archduke Franz Ferdinand's last words
"Sophie dear, Sophie dear, don't die! Stay alive for our children." - when his wife collapsed on him
"It's nothing." - said a few times after being asked if he was in pain. Shortly after these words the Archduke fell unconscious, dying later without ever regaining consciousness.
40 notes · View notes
thepastisalreadywritten · 3 years ago
Photo
Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria (18 December 1863 – 28 June 1914) was the heir presumptive to the throne of Austria-Hungary.
His assassination in Sarajevo is considered the most immediate cause of World War I.
------------
Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg (1 March 1868 – 28 June 1914), was the wife of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
Sophie was born in Stuttgart as the fourth daughter of Count Bohuslav Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin, a Bohemian aristocrat and Ambassador, and his wife Countess Wilhelmine Kinsky von Wchinitz und Tettau.
Tumblr media
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and future wife Countess Sophie of  Chotek von Chotkow and Wognin, playing tennis.
174 notes · View notes
thepastisalreadywritten · 4 years ago
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria (18 December 1863 – 28 June 1914) was the heir presumptive to the throne of Austria-Hungary.
His assassination in Sarajevo is considered the most immediate cause of World War I.
Franz Ferdinand was the eldest son of Archduke Karl Ludwig of Austria, the younger brother of Emperor Franz Joseph I.
Following the suicide of Crown Prince Rudolf in 1889 and the death of Karl Ludwig in 1896, Franz Ferdinand became the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
His courtship of Sophie Chotek, a lady-in-waiting, caused conflict within the imperial household, and their morganatic marriage in 1900 was only allowed after he renounced his descendants' rights to the throne.
Franz Ferdinand held significant influence over the military, and in 1913 he was appointed inspector general of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces.
----------
Morganatic marriage, legally valid marriage between a male member of a sovereign, princely, or noble house and a woman of lesser birth or rank, with the provision that she shall not thereby accede to his rank and that the children of the marriage shall not succeed to their father’s hereditary dignities, fiefs, and entailed property.
1 note · View note
archduchessofnowhere · 3 years ago
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg at the wedding of Franz Ferdinand's nephew Archduke Karl and Princess Zita, October 21 of 1911.
80 notes · View notes