• BBC News to liveblog the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, 100 years later
    58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Atlascore;45228808]Meaningless events? Are you serious? The whole reason the war started was because of that assassination, Austria-Hungary was looking for a reason to invade Serbia and the assassination gave them one. Also what do the British have to do with this? The war was going to happen regardless of anything the British did.[/QUOTE] The war would have ended very quickly if not for British participation,
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45229265]For the record, they tried to off him by chucking a bomb into his car at first. However, the Archduke would have none of it, and chucked the bomb out of the car, which exploded in the street and injured the occupants of the car behind his own.[/QUOTE] Fuck you, I'm the Duke!
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45229200]all of the sentiment of parliamentary meetings prior to the war were "we don't care lets not get involved." once the war began, british politicians were still uneasy about the idea of joining in and mostly against it and then the liberal prime minister said "yo we're not doing well in the polls you know and if we don't go to war basically i'm gonna resign and then none of you will have a job" so they voted to join the war. it was as simple as that. the idea that the war was an inevitable thing is just an idea we teach to try and make terrible decisions seem less awful a continental war was going to happen. a world war involving hundreds of thousands of deaths was not. if britain hand't have gotten involved it is almost certain that germany would have defeated france rapidly, probably annexed some territory, and then established economic control and left it at that ww1 was not inevitable. it was caused directly by the terrible miscalculations of the british government at the time getting involved in a war they didn't need to be involved in[/QUOTE] im dying here. around 18:00 is the most contrived way of creating white (british) guilt i've ever seen in my life. "if it wasn't for the brits the jews would be alive" [editline]27th June 2014[/editline] its still pretty interesting otherwise.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;45228529]The best part about WW1 is that if Gavrilo Princip wasn't eating that sandwich and instead went home, every major event of the 20th century could have been avoided.[/QUOTE] Except, that Sandwich wasn't mentioned until a book in 2003/2004ish. Every other source just mentions him being outside the Delicatessen that day, which is true. But he probably wasn't eating a sandwich. [editline]27th June 2014[/editline] oh i was beat by smurfy
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45229200]all of the sentiment of parliamentary meetings prior to the war were "we don't care lets not get involved." once the war began, british politicians were still uneasy about the idea of joining in and mostly against it and then the liberal prime minister said "yo we're not doing well in the polls you know and if we don't go to war basically i'm gonna resign and then none of you will have a job" so they voted to join the war. it was as simple as that. the idea that the war was an inevitable thing is just an idea we teach to try and make terrible decisions seem less awful [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9yNEvV6lI4#t=236[/media][/QUOTE] For what it's worth Niall Ferguson's view is rejected by the vast majority of historians. He participated in a BBC debate on it in February and [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10668072/The-Pity-of-War-BBC-Two-review.html]apparently got wrecked[/url] though I'm unable to find the full video
[QUOTE=smurfy;45228762]Gavrilo Princip buying a sandwich is actually a myth though, it's not mentioned in any sources prior to about 2001 [url]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gavrilo-princips-sandwich-79480741/?no-ist[/url] The shop he was standing outside was also part of the Archduke's original motorcade route so it's unlikely Princip just said fuck it and headed off to a random shop[/QUOTE] I know, but it's rather amusing to entertain the idea that a sandwich is capable of causing international conflict.
[QUOTE=Coffee;45229586]I know, but it's rather amusing to entertain the idea that a sandwich is capable of causing international conflict.[/QUOTE] Given that the sandwich was invented as a convenience food for an inveterate gambler, I'm sure it's caused it's fair share of conflict already :v:
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45228409]there's a vid on this in the video section but basically there's some historians who believe the way we're taught ww1 history in schools and the generally accepted consensus on the war is way too over simplified - the way we view the "scrap of paper" and the assassination and the arms race is a way of making the mistake of the war seem 'sad' and 'inevitable', especially because of some idea (that has no evidence) that germany had some expansionist world take-over plan which meant we had to get involved tldr we attach way too much emphasis to meaningless events as a way to explain and legitimise the horror that was the first world war, when really it just boils down to a terrible decision made at the last minute by british politicians[/QUOTE] British politicians? lmao as much as I don't like British WW1 conduct blaming Britain for the start just shows your ignorance on the matter
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;45229637]British politicians? lmao as much as I don't like British WW1 conduct blaming Britain for the start just shows your ignorance on the matter[/QUOTE] did you watch the video?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45229684]did you watch the video?[/QUOTE] yes, and I don't agree with him [editline]27th June 2014[/editline] I'm biased though because I know that this guy deliberately tries to be controversial on basically every topic he can lay his hands on though
Well, at least there's one important message to be taken from World War 1. Sometimes, the good guys lose.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;45228529]The best part about WW1 is that if Gavrilo Princip wasn't eating that sandwich and instead went home, every major event of the 20th century could have been avoided.[/QUOTE] And then other shit would have happend which may even have led to a WW2 with nuclear weapons.
They did this a year or two ago with twitter and the landing at Gallipoli. Went on for 6 months, the same length of the battle there. It was really interesting to see what was happening 24/7. As bad as it is I kinda followed it like a sports game, cheering when the Aussie's won some ground and feeling tense when things were going poorly.
Good to see that WW1 history is getting some of the deserved attention imo.
[url]https://twitter.com/Gallipoli_Live[/url] Hey I found it. I remember this whole thing now. My imagination is over active clearly but I was getting tense at tweets like: [QUOTE]17:26 General Davis, commander of British 8th Corps at Helles, requests 29th Division be transferred to his sector as front is thinly held[/QUOTE] Spent the next ten minutes refreshing to make sure the Turks hadn't made a move.
So if anyone wants to assassinate any Austro-Hungarian archdukes, tomorrow's your opportunity!
I know what im watching
Saves ink when describing the Ukraine.
I don't know why, but I feel like making a thread where we act like it is 1914.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45229265]For the record, they tried to off him by chucking a bomb into his car at first. However, the Archduke would have none of it, and chucked the bomb out of the car, which exploded in the street and injured the occupants of the car behind his own.[/QUOTE] You reminded me of Horrible Histories, I remember reading about that in the WW1 book.
It's started, for anyone who's not in the GMT timezone who wanted to know.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;45235706]They bombed the duke.[/QUOTE] Duke's all like "fuck that shit, let the show go on".
THE ARCHDUKE HAS BEEN SHOT EUROPE WILL BURN
Confirming: Archduke has been shot. Condition unknown. [editline]28th June 2014[/editline] Crowd is getting violent, police've had to stop them pummeling a guy. [editline]28th June 2014[/editline] They're dead.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45228409]there's a vid on this in the video section but basically there's some historians who believe the way we're taught ww1 history in schools and the generally accepted consensus on the war is way too over simplified - the way we view the "scrap of paper" and the assassination and the arms race is a way of making the mistake of the war seem 'sad' and 'inevitable', especially because of some idea (that has no evidence) that germany had some expansionist world take-over plan which meant we had to get involved tldr we attach way too much emphasis to meaningless events as a way to explain and legitimise the horror that was the first world war, when really it just boils down to a terrible decision made at the last minute by british politicians[/QUOTE] The UK joined the war for the very same reasons Germany did, merely from the other side of the barricade. Matter of fact, that's pretty much the same reason France joined. WW1 was caused due to actually upholding strategic alliances to an extent as opposed to ignoring them, which allowed ww2 to flourish.
Isn't it a by weird for a British news outlet to live cover an Austrian arch duke's visit to Sarajevo? It's like they knew something would happen
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.