[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yNEvV6lI4[/media]
There are plenty of discussions regarding WWI in Europe, as this year is the 100th year since it ww began.
I always held the belief that Germany's militaristic nature wasn't as militaristic or imperialist as that of the other European great powers, but rather something projected during and after war as propaganda to well, justify the war. Especially if you look at the amount of wars Germany had to that of France or Britain.
With that being said, WWI was a giant mistake which was the beginning of the end of western civilizations golden age.
There sure as hell wouldn't be internet without it.
edit:
Ok, maybe I should elaborate instead of making such a blunt statement, wasn't a funny joke anyway. Without WWI there would not have been a WW2, since this a direct cause of it (versailles treaty). The end of WW2 pretty much directly lead to the soviets and allies being superpower competitors, due to the massive ideological differences (and even though both [i]were[/i] allies, relations were all but smooth). The Cold War caused an arms race which lead to some technology advances such like better electronics, computers eventually the internet (look up ARPA).
Then again, nobody knows how the world would have looked like if none of these wars have happened. Can speculate endless on it, whether it might have been better, or not.
I believe that Britain aiding the Entente in WW1 was one of the worst decisions ever made in history. We had no reason to do it, sure the justification was protecting the rights of small nations (i.e Belgium), the same Belgium which had committed a genocide in the Congo and the same Britain which wiped the Orange Free State and the Transvaal republic from the face of the earth. We weren't even protecting democracy, we were allied to Tsarist Russia for god's sake, the most reactionary authoritarian government in Europe. Germany was less militarised than France and had a model welfare state which the British copied.
The only reason Britain got involved was pure politics. The Liberal government at the time was barely holding a government together and in order to kick the issue of Ireland and parliamentary politics into the long grass, H.H Asquith decided to join the war. The idea that we were "Maintaining the Balance of power in Europe" is silly, we won the naval race with Germany and France was our main colonial competitor, more so we didn't intervene in the Franco-Prussian war 40 odd years earlier despite that effecting the balance of power in Europe.
The Allied Victory in WW1 was pretty much the worst thing that could have happened. The consequences of it are pretty clear, The Wall Street Crash, WW2, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communist regimes all over the world, a plethora of wars in the middle east and many more awful things. Now we have no idea how the world would have taken shape if the Germans had won in 1914 which if it weren't for the British they probably would have. But the general consensus among historians is some sort of Economic Union akin to the EU except in 1914 and a powerful Germany and Britain keeping the peace in Europe. Not to mention all the slaughter that would have been avoided by a quick German victory.
Much of the reason the 20th century was so awful was the Allied Victory in WW1 and Britain's misguided decision to get involved.
i find it terrible that this was aired in 2000 but this side of the historical analysis, even if it is debated, wasn't taught to me in gcse history at all
[editline]27th June 2014[/editline]
"we went to war with germany because we are defenders of the peace and no matter how silly a treaty is we will never back down also we love boats"
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45223800]i find it terrible that this was aired in 2000 but this side of the historical analysis, even if it is debated, wasn't taught to me in gcse history at all[/QUOTE]
Yeah well the arrangement of a school/uni. classroom is not exactly fit for students having broad discussions about stuff. Everyone's focal point is on the know-it-all teacher, students are usually forbidden talking with one another, and instead they have to take notes of what the teacher says.
Then, the lectures are partitioned in 1h long sessions, and each hour you have a different subject comming along:1h english,then1h math,1h history etc.So you're never allowed to get in deep on a subject...You're not exactly encouraged to proof-test the education you recieve from school, and after years of grinding through school you get mentally conditioned to take things for granted.
On the other hand if you did allow wi-fi in class,laptops,phones; most of the students would just browse facebook and not be bothered with the lesson...so you're basically stuck with handing students simplistic material. "some guy shot franz ferdinand, inb4 war"
Then you get to hear of all the cool battles the country where you're studying won, to show just how good we are,right? Mentioning the 40million casualties,the war economy; that's a silly ideea.And then, it wasn't even our fault.
Anyway, I still don't get why most of the world got involved.What was in it for them?If anyone could shed some light...
[thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5HY2PQYGXU/UcBuD7Ti2_I/AAAAAAAAEbk/vogezw7vZH4/s1600/wwi-map.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=godfatherk;45224156]Yeah well the arrangement of a school/uni. classroom is not exactly fit for students having broad discussions about stuff. Everyone's focal point is on the know-it-all teacher, students are usually forbidden talking with one another, and instead they have to take notes of what the teacher says.
Then, the lectures are partitioned in 1h long sessions, and each hour is about something else.So you're never allowed to get in deep on a subject...You're not exactly encouraged to proof-test the education you recieve from school, and after years of grinding through school you get mentally conditioned to take things for granted.
On the other hand if you did allow wi-fi in class,laptops,phones; most of the students would just browse facebook and not be bothered with the lesson...so you're basically stuck with handing students simplistic material. "some guy shot franz ferdinand, inb4 war"
Then you get to hear of all the cool battles the country where you're studying won, to show just how good we are,right? Mentioning the 40million casualties,the war economy; that's a silly ideea.And then, it wasn't even our fault.
Anyway, I still don't get why most of the world got involved.What was in it for them?If anyone could shed some light...
[thumb]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c5HY2PQYGXU/UcBuD7Ti2_I/AAAAAAAAEbk/vogezw7vZH4/s1600/wwi-map.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
They were just happy to be invited to join the fun
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45224172]They were just happy to be invited to join the fun[/QUOTE]
Sure, but there were no spoils of war for them. The costs must have been huge though.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;45224213]Sure, but there were no spoils of war for them. The costs must have been huge though.[/QUOTE]
I think the title of "World War" is misleading for WW1. The only reason most of the world was involved was because of Empire and most truly independent countries (i.e no colonial master) were neutral. Most of the fighting was done in Europe.
[QUOTE=The mouse;45224512]I think the title of "World War" is misleading for WW1. The only reason most of the world was involved was because of Empire and most truly independent countries (i.e no colonial master) were neutral. Most of the fighting was done in Europe.[/QUOTE]
What about WW2?
Australia, Canada, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa had no business in WW1, we were purely pulled in by the British because of our "commitments to the empire"
Even though we all had independent/dominion status except India, we still had to be pulled into their own shit
If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't of had the tragic mistake of sending Australian and New Zealand troops (The ANZAC's) into Gallipoli which took the lives of many young soldiers thanks to the utter stupidity of the British Empire
Now we stand with the Turks and remember all troops who have fallen because it was a mistake we committed.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45246162]Australia, Canada, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa had no business in WW1, we were purely pulled in by the British because of our "commitments to the empire"
Even though we all had independent/dominion status except India, we still had to be pulled into their own shit
If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't of had the tragic mistake of sending Australian and New Zealand troops (The ANZAC's) into Gallipoli which took the lives of many young soldiers thanks to the utter stupidity of the British Empire
Now we stand with the Turks and remember all troops who have fallen because it was a mistake we committed.[/QUOTE]
In fact our country got renamed after a shitty trench warfare bomb they had us construct.
[QUOTE=The mouse;45223742]I believe that Britain aiding the Entente in WW1 was one of the worst decisions ever made in history. We had no reason to do it, sure the justification was protecting the rights of small nations (i.e Belgium), the same Belgium which had committed a genocide in the Congo and the same Britain which wiped the Orange Free State and the Transvaal republic from the face of the earth. We weren't even protecting democracy, we were allied to Tsarist Russia for god's sake, the most reactionary authoritarian government in Europe. Germany was less militarised than France and had a model welfare state which the British copied.
The only reason Britain got involved was pure politics. The Liberal government at the time was barely holding a government together and in order to kick the issue of Ireland and parliamentary politics into the long grass, H.H Asquith decided to join the war. The idea that we were "Maintaining the Balance of power in Europe" is silly, we won the naval race with Germany and France was our main colonial competitor, more so we didn't intervene in the Franco-Prussian war 40 odd years earlier despite that effecting the balance of power in Europe.
The Allied Victory in WW1 was pretty much the worst thing that could have happened. The consequences of it are pretty clear, The Wall Street Crash, WW2, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communist regimes all over the world, a plethora of wars in the middle east and many more awful things. Now we have no idea how the world would have taken shape if the Germans had won in 1914 which if it weren't for the British they probably would have. But the general consensus among historians is some sort of Economic Union akin to the EU except in 1914 and a powerful Germany and Britain keeping the peace in Europe. Not to mention all the slaughter that would have been avoided by a quick German victory.
Much of the reason the 20th century was so awful was the Allied Victory in WW1 and Britain's misguided decision to get involved.[/QUOTE]
Well, you have to remember, one of the biggest reasons Britain intervened is because they were afraid of Germany. Germany had a far better land military, industry that was at least on par with Britain, and they were quickly catching up with their navy. Britain didn't want Germany taking over their spot as the #1 empire, so they saw World War One as a preemptive strike against them.
Don't get me wrong, Britain was hardly on good terms with France, or even the USA for that matter. The difference was that, if Britain had to, they could go to war with France and win. However, if they went to war with Germany alone, the outcome would be unpredictable at best and total failure at worst.
But the sad thing about World War One (and I have said this many times before) is that there were no good guys. World War One was not "an alliance of free, democratic nations opposing evil dictatorships" because the Allies were just as horrible and greedy as Germany. France wanted to see Germany literally ripped apart into several city-states again because they thought a unified Germany "upset the balance of Europe" which basically meant it knocked them out of their position as the chief continental power. Russia was falling apart under Socialist and pro-democracy rebellions and saw the war as a chance to direct that anger against a common foe; Germany. Italy wanted some of Austria-Hungary's "Italian" holdings (although it is debatable how "Italian" some of these were) and they were generally pissed about Austria-Hungary's attempts to stall Italian unity. Germany wanted to "earn its place in the sun" and win a colonial empire by beating the competition. Austria-Hungary was, like Russia, struggling under revolt and discontent and wanted common foes to direct their anger against, and the Ottomans were struggling to maintain their "empire" and keep what little was left from falling apart. Even the grand old USA was in it for selfish intentions: they wanted to be seen as the hero that, at the last minute, swooped in and saved the Entente and in reward be given a more important position on the world political stage.
But you are right, in WWI, the Entente's victory was probably the worst thing that could happen. That isn't to say times wouldn't be tough if Germany won, but I believe the world would be a much better place. Think about it, Germany was not only more progressive with welfare and social policy, but in the short time that the German Empire existed, Germans won more Nobel prizes than Britain, France, and Russia [I]combined[/I] in that same time period. The amount of scientific progress in the German Empire was astounding. And I hate to say it, but Zionism would never have taken of in Germany like it did in Britain, meaning no home state for Israel, therefore never creating the problems in Palestine and elsewhere. World War Two could have occurred, but there circumstances would be different and probably result in far fewer deaths. The Soviet Union would still be here, but the only scenarios to me are: Germany leads the West in a Cold War against the USSR, or there is a 3-way Cold War between Germany (and a Europe under German hegemony), the USA and former Commonwealth states, and the USSR, and it is quite possible there would be no nukes.
[QUOTE=The mouse;45223742]
Much of the reason the 20th century was so awful was the Allied Victory in WW1 and Britain's misguided decision to get involved.[/QUOTE]
I would've felt a lot better not knowing all this :(
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
