The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I could only blame the serbs if they had had any reason to expect that the assasination would trigger such a war.
The real blame lies with creation of alliance blocs with no clear dominant side. Once those conditions were set peace in europe was probably going to be a metastable condition.
War might also have been averted if the alliances were open treaties that made them unambiguously purely defensive.
LoTM is closest. Like Rome and Carthage, Europe's major powers interests were conflicting and the conflicts were getting worse. The assassination was the spark that set off a series of events that lead to war. Some leaders actively worked to stop the war, but others, even in the same countries, did everything to undermine the peace efforts and continue the march.
The Brits were concerned about the German naval buildup and the contest they had gotten into with them over oil rights in the ME. Most of these were controlled by the Ottomans who were tilting towards Germany because of the long antogisms between the Ottomans and the Russians and Serbs. Thus the Brits had major reasons to go to war regardless of Belgium.
France wanted revenge and their provinces of Alcaice and Loraine back.
Russia and Serbia want to get all slavs out from under Austrian control. Austria was faced with a slavic revolt in its empire.
So the assassination was used as a pretext for war by most of the powers, the Brits used Belgium, and the Ottomans sided with the Germans because of Russia. But the underlying conflicting interests were the real reason for the war.
Whose fault?
The fault lies in those who favored war and not peace in the houses of government of the various major powers. The war was not about the assassination or about Belgium -- except in fiction books or among the warmongers we find so plentiful here on Apolyton.
"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
Trying to pin WW1 down to one single country is clearly absurd. The whole dynamics of the time (agressive search for new markets, for raw resources, and large countries consolidating themselves with nationalism) was a recipe for war.
"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
Originally posted by Ned
LoTM is closest. Like Rome and Carthage, Europe's major powers interests were conflicting and the conflicts were getting worse. The assination was the spark that set off a series of events that lead to war. Some leaders actively worked to stop the war, but others, even in the same countries, did everything to undermine the peace efforts and continue the march.
The Brits were concerned about the German naval buildup and the contest they had gotten into with them over oil rights in the ME. Most of these were controlled by the Ottomans who were tilting towards Germany because of the long antogisms between the Ottomans and the Russians and Serbs. Thus the Brits had major reasons to go to war regardless of Belgium.
France wanted revenge and their provinces of Alcaice and Loraine back.
Russia and Serbia want to get all slavs out from under Austrian control. Austria was faced with a slavic revolt in its empire.
So the assassination was used as a pretext for war by most of the powers, the Brits used Belgium, and the Ottomans sided with the Germans because of Russia. But the underlying conflicting interests were the real reason for the war.
Whose fault?
The fault lies in those who favored war and not peace in the houses of government of the various major powers. The war was not about the assassination or about Belgium -- except in fiction books or among the warmongers we find so plentiful here on Apolyton.
I would like to disassociate myself from the above remarks, which I do not think logically follow from what I said.
A war of SOME kind was inevitable. That does not mean I agree in full with Neds charecterization of how the OTL war actually started.
Sorry if that makes me a warmonger.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Don't worry LotM, it's Neddy's latest tactic. I have seen him claim agreement with me, you, molly, nye, spiffor and a few others in order to give apparent creedence to his other positions.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
LoTM, there is a difference between Israel and her neighbors. Israel goes to war only when attacked. The Arabs go to war intentionally.
I think this aptly demonstrates that the mere presence of conflicting interests does not mean that war is inevitable.
War seems to result, other than when one is attacked, when one or both sides are driven to war by warmongers, who see advantage or solutions in war that cannot be obtained by negotiations or other less violent means.
Europe in that age was filled with warmongers of various stripes. Imperialists. Nationalists. Etc. They all seemed hellbent on war, a common denominator among them.
What makes Europe today different from the Europe of that era, in the main, is the complete absence of warmongers. Europe is very passive and will hardly defend even itself from obvious threats.
I regret to say, because at the time I supported them, but both Bush's (but particularly "W") were and are warmongers. I can understand why the world hates them so much.
Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, there is a difference between Israel and her neighbors. Israel goes to war only when attacked. The Arabs go to war intentionally.
I think this aptly demonstrates that the mere presence of conflicting interests does not mean that war is inevitable.
War seems to result, other than when one is attacked, when one or both sides are driven to war by warmongers, who see advantage or solutions in war that cannot be obtained by negotiations or other less violent means.
Well at least in that you seem to agree with Molly, that WW1 was started by warmongers. I beleive there are times when the grand strategic situation can lead to a war no one wants. I think WW1 is about as close to a textbook example example as there is.
And lets not threadjack this to the ME.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Originally posted by Dauphin
Don't worry LotM, it's Neddy's latest tactic. I have seen him claim agreement with me, you, molly, nye, spiffor and a few others in order to give apparent creedence to his other positions.
Im beginning to think that this forum was a mistake, in no small part due to Ned, and to the poster who likes to use Ned as his foil.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Well at least in that you seem to agree with Molly, that WW1 was started by warmongers. I beleive there are times when the grand strategic situation can lead to a war no one wants. I think WW1 is about as close to a textbook example example as there is.
And lets not threadjack this to the ME.
Molly and I do agree on that. What we do not agree on is that the only warmongers were among the Germans and Austrians.
Im beginning to think that this forum was a mistake, in no small part due to Ned, and to the poster who likes to use Ned as his foil.
And, LoTM, why would you want a history forum where the people only tried to demonstrate to others how much they know about history rather than to critically discuss important events?
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im beginning to think that this forum was a mistake, in no small part due to Ned, and to the poster who likes to use Ned as his foil.
Is that me?
I'd say there was a great deal of desire for war among the upper echelons of many different states concenrned in the conflict. Because nobody realized the death and devastation of modern war, it was all the easier to think it would be short and decisive, and thus less objectionable generally. In short, nobody wanted that war, but many wanted a war.
Edit:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Imperialists. Duh.
Also this.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
If the nature of the alliances had been more open and the terms of those treaties had specified no commitment to an ally who had made the first attack I wonder if those conditions could have prevented the war.
There hadn't been such a general european war in several decades. Could it not have been successfully postponed indefinately?
Tweet
Comment