[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;43887086]I personally think that if you go too far back in your interpretations they become meaningless - There were always other opportunities to prevent war. Sure, its useful for background information/long term reasons but it shouldn't be the main argument IMO[/QUOTE]
What no way obviously Richard the Lionheart granting John Lackland the Earldom of Cornwall was the cause of WWI
Oh wait history is a sum and there is rarely if ever one true cause
WWI cannot be blamed on any single country or problem.
The main factor that caused WWI was the big paranoid empires building armies and creating alliances that left them no choice but to take sides in a conflict that they otherwise would've been a neutral party to.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;43888403]WWI cannot be blamed on any single country or problem.
The main factor that caused WWI was the big paranoid empires building armies and creating alliances that left them no choice but to take sides in a conflict that they otherwise would've been a neutral party to.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like my normal game of civ 5.
I blame the war on everybody who saw also saw Pacifism as a threat or a subversive ideology.
Every country which imprisoned pacifists during the war more or less committed moral wrongs and are to blame.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;43888392]What no way obviously Richard the Lionheart granting John Lackland the Earldom of Cornwall was the cause of WWI
Oh wait history is a sum and there is rarely if ever one true cause[/QUOTE]
I mean. A LITTLE. England losing its french lands because of John sort of started a lot of nationalism rolling on each side and was a factor in the development of those countries as Empires.
I caused WWI.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43887915]Nah man. It's a bit of everyone. France never lets up a grudge and they had a boner for Alase Lorraine even though it was barely french, but they wanted to get back for their humiliation in the Franco Prussian War.
Britain didn't want Germany to become a naval super power. Russia didn't want Germany to become a supersuper power. Austria annexing Bosnia in earlier almost caused World war 1, but everyone backed off because Germany was supporting Austria. It would have broken out sooner or later but the Alliances jumping in was a bad deal.[/QUOTE]
You can list all the motivations you want but Germany was the only one to act on them.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43888422]You can list all the motivations you want but Germany was the only one to act on them.[/QUOTE]
Britain didn't have to declare war because the treaty of london said they should protect belgium.
That's them acting on it. Russia didn't have to declare war but they wanted to get a Pan Slavic thing going on.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43888416]I mean. A LITTLE. England losing its french lands because of John sort of started a lot of nationalism rolling on each side and was a factor in the development of those countries as Empires.[/QUOTE]
I'd say nationalism really started during the Hundred Years War, but as with anything else in history John's disastrous loss of the core Plantagenet domain laid the foundation for an awful lot of shit
[QUOTE]people who blame germany are wrong. germany was the least militaristic western nation at the time. since waterloo to the start of ww1, germany has had the least amount of wars of the powers in europe. Britain had had 10 wars... germany 3. And germany only was involved in 1 war about territorial gain.
[/QUOTE]
I totally disagree.
The level of nationalism and romanticism displayed in Germany's literature is unseen in any other country.
After the Empire was formed and they won agaisnt the French they displayed a lot of arrogance and airs of superiority against any other enemy. Die Wacht am Rhein is clearly evidence of this.
At the start of the WW1, Germany had the most professional, biggest and trained army. Think about it. They stood mostly on their own against British AND French forces forcing a stalemate that only broken via exhaustion due to the blockade and thanks to fresh troops from the US. If only one of the 2 powers faced them, they would have been utterly destroyed.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43888449]Britain didn't have to declare war because the treaty of london said they should protect belgium.
That's them acting on it. Russia didn't have to declare war but they wanted to get a Pan Slavic thing going on.[/QUOTE]
Fulfilling a defensive treaty isn't exactly what I meant when I said "acting on it." Germany, on the other hand, fully supported Austria in their stupid war of conquest knowing full well what the consequences were. I wouldn't say that they "conspired" to bring about a full European war, but the German support of Austria is what led to it all. It's unlikely Austria would have invaded Serbia without the support of Germany, knowing that Russia would have defended the Serbs. Germany's support led to inevitable conflict with Russia which in turn led to inevitable conflict with France which in turn led to conflict with Britain.
[QUOTE]I'd say nationalism really started during the Hundred Years War, but as with anything else in history John's disastrous loss of the core Plantagenet domain laid the foundation for an awful lot of shit
[/QUOTE]
Nationalism was in a basic form around the time of Machiavelli, he wrote The Prince with the idea of having someone being able to reunite all the republics and kingdoms of Italy under one banner.
[QUOTE=Kentz;43888035]people who blame germany are wrong. germany was the least militaristic western nation at the time. since waterloo to the start of ww1, germany has had the least amount of wars of the powers in europe. Britain had had 10 wars... germany 3. And germany only was involved in 1 war about territorial gain.
yeah i blame england[/QUOTE]
Germany and Krupp at the time were pretty much the paradigm for industrial scale killing potential as well as having the second largest army in Europe
Can't you trace a lot of conflict that has happened in modern history to the notion of a group of people governed by another separate group of people and used violence? Look at Serbian nationalism or the German invasion of the Sudetenland or Palestine-Israeli conflict? Even look at things happening now in Europe like Catalan terrorism or the war in Chechnya. The basic idea seems to be the same.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43887815]Germany is solely to blame.[/QUOTE]
That's what the allies thought too, and that attitude led to WW2.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43890082]That's what the allies thought too, and that attitude led to WW2.[/QUOTE]
So? That doesn't make it any less true.
It was me, I started WW1.
Well whatever started it we ended up with Trianon, so I'm k with everything
[QUOTE=Explosions;43890137]So? That doesn't make it any less true.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes it was Germany who first declared war on Serbia and did not say to Russia "Bro please back off I really don't want to go to war with you".
The war was caused by all nations involved. Serbia for the actions of The Black Hand, Austro-Hungaria over reacting to Serbia accepting all points of the ultimatum save for one of them, Russia for going "Serbia we got you", Germany for saying "Austria we got you, and hey France fuck you", Britain for backing up Belgium, etc...
It was not caused by the actions if a single nation, but joint forces of an arm race and nationilism that existed withing Europe.
But if we were to pick two nations that really started it, Austria-Hungary and Serbia are the clear two choices for the immediate start.
[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;43888418]I caused WWI.[/QUOTE]
no- it was me, they said it was my bad posts, i'm sorry everyone
[QUOTE=bdd458;43891047]Ah yes it was Germany who first declared war on Serbia and did not say to Russia "Bro please back off I really don't want to go to war with you".
The war was caused by all nations involved. Serbia for the actions of The Black Hand, Austro-Hungaria over reacting to Serbia accepting all points of the ultimatum save for one of them, Russia for going "Serbia we got you", Germany for saying "Austria we got you, and hey France fuck you", Britain for backing up Belgium, etc...
It was not caused by the actions if a single nation, but joint forces of an arm race and nationilism that existed withing Europe.
But if we were to pick two nations that really started it, Austria-Hungary and Serbia are the clear two choices for the immediate start.[/QUOTE]
Did you read my posts? Austria would never have gone to war with Serbia without Germany's backing, as they knew Russia would back Serbia in a conflict. Germany knew what the repercussions of going to war with Russia would be and they backed Austria anyway.
germany and france were the real problem which lead to ww1, german colonial interests clashed with existing french territories, as well both sides were run by war-hawks ready to strike with each other at any point. serbia's anarchists were kicking the bee's nest they believed the tsar would have beat back their enemies quickly which was a bit of a stretch, war with the hungarian empire was the real death-knell for the tsar as they were able to block up russia's busiest ports and they never were able to take them back.
[editline]12th February 2014[/editline]
really nationalism and anarchists were responsible for ww1 more than anything else.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43891932]Did you read my posts? Austria would never have gone to war with Serbia without Germany's backing, as they knew Russia would back Serbia in a conflict. Germany knew what the repercussions of going to war with Russia would be and they backed Austria anyway.[/QUOTE]
And the only reason Russia rushed to Serbia's defence was because they were Russia's last ally in the Balkans, thanks to the meddling of The Great Powers during both the frist and second Balkan Wars.
Did the Serbian government support the black hand?
[QUOTE=Explosions;43887815]Germany is solely to blame. They had massive ambitions of conquest in Europe. This led them to support a terrible ally in their ridiculous war just so they had an excuse to take out Russia and France.[/QUOTE]
Why would they want to fight a two-fronted war? They didn't even believe that Russia was a glass giant at the time.
[editline]13th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;43891992]
really nationalism and anarchists were responsible for ww1 more than anything else.[/QUOTE]
States fighting a war because of series of secret alliances is the fault of anarchists?
The thing that really fucks with me is how ironically despite everything that happened in world war 1, the fucker got what he wanted and after world war 1 there was a united yugoslavia.
Austria probably
The assassination was just a excuse to attack, tensions were high before that.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43887128]I still can't believe that most of the powerful world leaders at the time were loosely related.
That blew me away in my modern history class at high school.
Wilhelm II, was related to Queen Victoria... and his second cousin was Tsar Nicholas II. :v:
Germany, UK, and Russia.[/QUOTE]
Must have had some very awkward family reunions.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;43893148]Did the Serbian government support the black hand?[/QUOTE]
Not directly, but members of the Serbian Military and Government were involved with the Black Hand and affiliated groups.
Wasn't the treaty of london mostly designed to keep the Netherlands from making aggresive moves on the Belgians?
(we're sorry).
Anyway, there is no clear blame to WW1, that is why it was even more unfair that Germany got so heavy penalized, and this is a direct cause to WW2 and Holocaust(remember Germany almost lost no German ground at the end of the war, this caused massive dissent amongst the military).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
