In presenting the Nobel Peace Prize to Buisson and Quidde, the Nobel Committee wishes to recognize the emergence in France and Germany of a public opinion which favors peaceful international cooperation. They have guided this work in two countries where it has been particularly difficult to accomplish, but where the need for it has been commensurately great. It is in the task of reorienting public opinion that Buisson and Quidde have played such prominent roles. Therefore the great organized work for peace must be preceded by the education of the people, by a campaign to turn mass thinking away from war as a recognized means of settling disputes, and to substitute another and much higher ideal: peaceful cooperation between nations, with an international court of justice to resolve any disagreements which might arise between them. A constant and real threat of war also lies in the mentality of men, in the psychology of the masses. Governments and their policies are not the only potential menace to peace. This year we pay tribute through the Nobel Prize to a different kind of work for the cause of peace. These were political measures effected by responsible agents of government, and we emphasized their importance by awarding the Peace Prize to four statesmen 1 who had rendered outstanding service in making them possible. The Nobel Committee has awarded the Peace Prize for this year jointly to Ferdinand Buisson and Ludwig Quidde.Īt last year’s ceremony the Committee gave prominence to three events of historical significance to the world: the Dawes Plan, the Locarno Pact, and Germany’s admission to the League of Nations. Presentation Speech by Fredrik Stang *, Chairman of the Nobel Committee, on December 10, 1927 Share via Email: Award ceremony speech Share this content via Email.Share on LinkedIn: Award ceremony speech Share this content on LinkedIn.Tweet: Award ceremony speech Share this content on Twitter.Share on Facebook: Award ceremony speech Share this content on Facebook.In the Balkans it will also be a real challenge to keep both the A-H's and the Russians fed and happy, and I guess British and French diplomacy will try to divide the DreiKaiser alliance here. With a very strong Germany France is indeed a more natural Russian ally. #League of three emperors 1873 significance freeThe Russians might be temporaily bought by being given a free hand and support for going at the Ottomans, the Japanese and the British Empire (India), but the Russians will start feeling that while they have both hands occupied the Germans have grabbed them by the balls. Both Russia and A-H were industrialising at record breaking speed before 1914, and the Russian naval programe initiated before WWI would alone be a significant contribution.Īnyway I doubt if Russia for very long will be satisfied by being an assistant to German foreign policy. In the first instance the RN will make GB and her Empire perfectly safe, but with no major continental enemies the German and Russian shipbuilding industries combined have a good chance of outbuilding GB. If USA had been fully armed and prepared that might have given hope, but I'm afraid France will be run over much before that is possible. But still, Imperial Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary is one mighty alliance - even for GB on the zenith of her power in alliance with France. I agree that this is really THE grand challenge of diplomacy, and in the end Germany will have to choose. In fact, it is very likely that we would have seen a much more monarchistic Europe into the late XXth-early XXIst centuries. Also, World War II would have probably not happened in the form we know of, but another Cold War could and would have still occurred, especially if WWI ended in a relative stalemate. Not to mention with the war itself relatively far from Russian borders, and as such potentially smaller scale Russian involvement could eventually decrease the population's dissatisfaction with the government that led to revolution.Ĭonsidering that the Revolution of 1917 was largely financed by the German money, it is likely that even if the revolution has happened, it would have been very likely to fail at its start due to no financing with lesser dissatisfaction against the war the uprising would have been less likely, and even if the French, the British, or the Americans tried to finance it, the domestic situation in Russia would have been such as to decrease the chances of revolution's success.Įffectively, should the war not result in a major Russian/German/Austrian loss, we could still have a constitutional monarchy in Russia at the beginning of XXIst century. Russia entering World War I on a different side? If this were the case, the World War I could have lasted for much longer time, should the Franco-British alliance be able to hold its positions and not fall within shorter time due to greater manpower being thrown at them.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |