Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand found alive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Pretty much. Sava, while you are completely correct and I do not accuse dubya for 9/11, it has been relatively public knowledge that the increasinly powerful PNAC has been waiting for "another pearl harbour", that can be used to justify what can only be described as American imperialism.
    "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
    "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sava
      Care to elaborate?
      Why are you asking me questions about an issue you agree with me on? WWI ... imminent at that point. It was just a question of when. Does that look familiar?
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • #18
        I think WWI was pretty much imminent from 1906 and the launch of the HMS Dreadnought.

        Current political attitudes at the time were imperialistic, and I doubt they would have had the capacity for peace, especially since Britains success in empire and lack of threatening conflict since Napoleon can generally cause something of a bloodlust in these isles.
        "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
        "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by elijah
          Pretty much. Sava, while you are completely correct and I do not accuse dubya for 9/11, it has been relatively public knowledge that the increasinly powerful PNAC has been waiting for "another pearl harbour", that can be used to justify what can only be described as American imperialism.
          The United States has had many chances in History to justify as you say " American imperialism." So what make this time any different from the rest? From what I have seen in Iraq their is little benfit for the US to occupy Iraq for an extend period of time and make it part of the United States. This would only cause more problems then it is worth.
          Donate to the American Red Cross.
          Computer Science or Engineering Student? Compete in the Microsoft Imagine Cup today!.

          Comment


          • #20
            Why are you asking me questions about an issue you agree with me on? WWI ... imminent at that point. It was just a question of when. Does that look familiar?
            I don't agree that the assassination was irrelevant. I requested elaboration because I didn't fully understand your point. Don't blame me for your inability to explain yourself. Geez.
            To us, it is the BEAST.

            Comment


            • #21
              The United States has had many chances in History to justify as you say " American imperialism."
              Not really since Pearl Habour and certainly not since PNAC.

              From what I have seen in Iraq their is little benfit for the US to occupy Iraq for an extend period of time and make it part of the United States.
              Im not saying that Iraq will turn into the 52nd state (Britain being 51st), but I am saying that it will be subject to US influence, perhaps even become a puppet state to some extent. I certainly imagine that nation to be garrisonned in a similar fashion to Saudi Arabia, which is too far imo.
              "I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
              "You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:

              Comment


              • #22
                as others have said, it is diffcult to see how ww1 could have been avoided, even a more limited war is difficult to imagine, considering the alliance system at the time. although it is possible to argue that britain might have stayed out of it (and, perhaps, have italy joining in on the german side), if belgium hadn't been attacked, but that's another thread...

                if the archduke hadn't died, or there wasn't an attempt on his life, then another pretext would have been found and used by austria to start a war against serbia, which in turn would have dragged russia in etc. etc.
                "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                Comment


                • #23
                  I thought Israel was the 51st state.
                  "Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Does anyone else think that if Britain had stayed out of WWI, the Germans could have had a (relatively) quick victory, taken some French colonies and Russian land and the rest of the century would have gone a lot better?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      ZE: I think it could have happened that way. The British being already in mid-France was quite a surprise to the Germans and probably was the reason they didn't take Paris (even if the taxi drivers were working at full speed ).
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.â€
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        God****ing damnit. Sava, are you aware that I went into triple heart attacks when I saw the thread title? Next time, say "Hypothetical" or something, will you? (AKA I am gullible. )

                        And while I only know a few things about WWI, I do know enough to say that it would have started, sooner or later. Ferdinand just happened to be the poor soul assosciated with the start.
                        meet the new boss, same as the old boss

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by elijah
                          Sound familiar? *cough*911*cough*?
                          Please, turn your head when you are making a bad analogy!
                          He's got the Midas touch.
                          But he touched it too much!
                          Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            wasn't this the title of an onion article in the "our dumb century" book?
                            B♭3

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jack_www

                              From what I have seen in Iraq their is little benfit for the US to occupy Iraq for an extend period of time and make it part of the United States. This would only cause more problems then it is worth.
                              Are you saying we as a nation actually do something out of noble causes and not for benefits of our own?
                              :-p

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Actually, I'm not sure WW1 would have remained imminent if Europe had to wait a few more years before a new pretext presented itself.

                                At that time, many of the problems that came with African / Asian colonization were solved or in the way of being solved, and Germany was on the way of supplanting the UK as #1 economic power, i.e the war could have been useless for Germany a few years later.

                                The Tsar was extremely gung-ho at this time because he needed a quick and easy war (all leaders believed the war would be quick and easy in 1914) to get support from hiw rebellious population. With a few years more, Russia could either have fallen into revolutionary hands, or could have been industrialized enough for famines (and famine revolts) to stop. That would have made the Tsar's popularity concerns irrelevant.

                                The French wanted Alsace and Lorraine back, as they had been conquered by Germany in 1970. The whole French nationalism was fueled by the loss of Alsace - Lorraine, but essentially was fueled by the 3rd Republic, which was still young and fragile at that time, and needed an easy way to get unity behind it (i.e hardcore nationalism). With a few more years, the Republic could have been more stable, and could have dropped the hardcore nationalism that resulted in the French enthusiasm to join the war.

                                As a summary, if Franz Ferdinand hadn't been killed, and if this non-assassination had bought a few years time of peace, WW1 could have not happened, because the keg of powder could have disappered by itself.
                                "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                                "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                                "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X