Could WW1 have been averted?

[Dinner]

Undoubtedly, yes.

I'm not sure you are correct as much of the difference was that pro-British forces went to France and died in droves while pro-independence people did not volunteer. I'm thinking several million additional pro-union forces just might have made the difference.

[Dinner]

Does Hitler still come to power?

If there is no WW1 then no but if stopping the assassination doesn't stop WW1, because it was inevitable, then yes. Laz seems in the "no matter what they would have had a go at each other" camp.

[C0ckney]

I'm not sure you are correct as much of the difference was that pro-British forces went to France and died in droves while pro-independence people did not volunteer. I'm thinking several million additional pro-union forces just might have made the difference.

this is simply untrue. large numbers of both unionists and homerulers went to france as volunteers. furthermore, a home rule bill had been passed by the UK parliament in 1914, but its implementation was postponed due to the outbreak of war.

[C0ckney]

although it's worth noting that if home rule had gone through in 1914, it could well have led to civil war in ireland over the ulster question.

[Sava]

That too.

So the answer is no?

Well, then **** Franz Ferdinand. I'll go back and shoot him myself!

[Al B. Sure!]

There is a school of thought that the world wars were an inevitable result of geography and our Western focus on Britain, France, America, and the Western Fronts of both wars causes us to misunderstand the long war of 1914-1945. This school believes the period was actually characterized by a conflict between Germany (and her allies) and Russia for control of Mitteleuropa. Certainly in both wars, Germany's plan was to knock France out of the fight early and concentrate on the Eastern Front.

[C0ckney]

i don't find that very convincing. if we look at pre-ww1 russia, it's a very backwards peasant society, industrialisation has barely started; it's big and inhospitable but at the same time poor and lacking the resources to wage modern warfare effectively. germany, britain and france are wealthy industrial countries, and probably the three most powerful in the world at the time (an argument can be made for the US being in this group, but that's not a crucial point). it's clear who germany's main competitors are, on the economic and diplomatic stage.

[Al B. Sure!]

i don't find that very convincing. if we look at pre-ww1 russia, it's a very backwards peasant society, industrialisation has barely started; it's big and inhospitable but at the same time poor and lacking the resources to wage modern warfare effectively. germany, britain and france are wealthy industrial countries, and probably the three most powerful in the world at the time (an argument can be made for the US being in this group, but that's not a crucial point). it's clear who germany's main competitors are, on the economic and diplomatic stage.

The dance between Prussia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia for control and influence over East-Central Europe went back centuries and had a profound importance in German geopolitics.

Consider this from the wikipedia article on the July Crisis

(German chancellor 1909-1917) Bethmann Hollweg told Riezler (his chief adviser) that Germany was “completely paralysed” and that “The future belongs to Russia which is growing and growing, and is becoming an ever increasing nightmare to us”.[54] Riezler went to write in his diary that Bethmann Hollweg painted a “devastating picture” with Russia building rail-roads in Congress Poland that allow Russia to mobilize faster once the Great Military Programme was finished in 1917,[55] and that an Austro-Serbian war would probably cause a world war, “...which would lead to an overthrow of the existing order”, but since the “existing order was lifeless and void of ideas”, such a war could only be welcomed as a blessing to Germany.[55] Bethmann Hollweg's fears about Russia led him to credit Anglo-Russian naval talks in May 1914 as the beginning of an “encirclement” policy against Germany that could only be broken through war.[54] After Anglo-French naval talks had taken place, the Russians demanded the same courtesy be extended to them, which led to inconclusive Anglo-Russian naval talks.[56]

[Al B. Sure!]

English geography Halford Mackinder formulated an idea in 1904 in his 'The Geographical Pivot of History' which he summarized after the war in 1919 as:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island controls the world."

You see the importance of Mitteleuropa to German geopolitical thought in the writings of men like Karl Haushofer and Friedrich Naumann. Drang nach Osten, 'yearning for the East', and Ostsiedlung, 'east settling', were long-standing Germanic concepts that resonated with great power among the late 19th century/early 20th century German elites.



As for your attention to Russian backwardness, consider that it did not deter the British from participating in the Great Game with Russia throughout the 19th century until the 1907 Anglo-Russian Entente.

[Dinner]

this is simply untrue. large numbers of both unionists and homerulers went to france as volunteers. furthermore, a home rule bill had been passed by the UK parliament in 1914, but its implementation was postponed due to the outbreak of war.

So, your position is that large numbers of people who hated the British never the less enlisted in the British Army even though they knew the officer corp of the British Army hated them? I find that hard to believe and instead think the most pro-British elements were the first to volunteer. Those were the ones killed in the millions. Not the Irish nationalists who did not volunteer to join the British Army.

[Al B. Sure!]

So, your position is that large numbers of people who hated the British never the less enlisted in the British Army even though they knew the officer corp of the British Army hated them? I find that hard to believe and instead think the most pro-British elements were the first to volunteer. Those were the ones killed in the millions. Not the Irish nationalists who did not volunteer to join the British Army.

The Irish nationalists did volunteer.

To quote Francis Ledwidge, Irish nationalist and poet, who died at Ypres in 1917: "I joined the British Army because she stood between Ireland and an enemy of civilisation and I would not have her say that she defended us while we did nothing but pass resolutions".

Or take John Redmond, Irish nationalist politician:

The interests of Ireland — of the whole of Ireland — are at stake in this war. This war is undertaken in the defence of the highest principles of religion and morality and right, and it would be a disgrace for ever to our country and a reproach to her manhood and a denial of the lessons of her history if young Ireland confined their efforts to remaining at home to defend the shores of Ireland from an unlikely invasion, and to shrinking from the duty of proving on the field of battle that gallantry and courage which has distinguished our race all through its history. I say to you, therefore, your duty is twofold. I am glad to see such magnificent material for soldiers around me, and I say to you: "Go on drilling and make yourself efficient for the Work, and then account yourselves as men, not only for Ireland itself, but wherever the fighting line extends, in defence of right, of freedom, and religion in this war".

[Dinner]

I continue to think Laz is wrong but in his defense I present this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NscSGuqr2QU

[Dinner]

Enlisting in your enemy's army is a weird way of showing your hatred.

[Al B. Sure!]

Continue always being wrong without fail then.

[Dinner]

THE QUESTION
First let's refine your question: 99% of people who say their dog is "racist" really mean their dog doesn't seem to like some dark-skinned people, e.g. african-american/black. Very few cases of dogs tending to dislike light-skinned people are reported - historically and in the literature, to the limited extent the issue has been researched; as well as in my experience working with over 800 different dog owners. There's even a historical case of an attempt to train army dogs to attack Japanese people, but after repeated efforts the dogs weren't able to reliably distinguish the race.

It goes on from there and it turns out there is a long history of training racist dogs. I did not train my dog to be racist but it was an unexpected result of the dog's own "way of thinking".

http://gawker.com/5972557/why-are-dogs-racist-canine-experts-speak