Could WW1 have been averted?

[Dinner]

Continue always being wrong without fail then.

Oh, I get it! You really are so stupid that you don't understand that this is something losers say when they they can' combat what I say so they talk lots of ****, end up looking like 10 gallons of ****, then pick a tiny difference and pretend it is a major one. This is the poly way, as you should well know, as you have always been a failure in everything you do.

[C0ckney]

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.

it doesn't matter what you think or find hard to believe. i've told you what happened, you can either take my (and al's) word for it, or read some history, which will tell you the same thing.

[C0ckney]

al, i don't disagree with anything you posted there (well apart from mackinder, as that's just his opinion, which of course turned out to be wrong), but i don't see how it supports the view you advanced in post 21.

on the subject of the great game, my view on russian backwardness comes from its lack of industrialisation; at the beginning of the 20th century around 85% of the population were engaged in agriculture and the consequent inability to produce goods needed for consumption or matériel for war. i don't really see what the great game has to do with any of that.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

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

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

Why are you dismissing the large, highly-influential and growing Home Rule movement in England at the time? It's very easy to see which way the governments were moving. If you think I'm wrong, you need to explain why there would have been a complete U-turn in that trend caused by the absence of a World War.

[Bereta_Eder]

minor threadjacking but is it a flute, the woodwind instrument, that is used in that song?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's a tin whistle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T99KBCPsHIQ

[Bereta_Eder]

that's actually beautiful! You'd expect a leprechaun to poke its face behind a door any minute!

[Al B. Sure!]

Oh, I get it! You really are so stupid that you don't understand that this is something losers say when they they can' combat what I say so they talk lots of ****, end up looking like 10 gallons of ****, then pick a tiny difference and pretend it is a major one. This is the poly way, as you should well know, as you have always been a failure in everything you do.

It's not even worth arguing with someone who thinks whatever preconceived and completely unsupported gut notion he has trumps actual contrary facts. You haven't submitted anything to support your contention.

You can't even post in the right thread. This isn't your racist dog thread. You lack so much awareness that you didn't even recognize or correct your mistake even though you posted again exactly 4 minutes later.

[Sava]

It's not even worth arguing with someone who thinks whatever preconceived and completely unsupported gut notion he has trumps actual contrary facts.

And yet, here you are.

[Bereta_Eder]

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

That's not always the case. During the events of the armenian (jewish/greek) tragedy in asia minor, the kurds actively supported the turkish side because they were promised their own land and country. (they were tricked, in the end).

[Al B. Sure!]

al, i don't disagree with anything you posted there (well apart from mackinder, as that's just his opinion, which of course turned out to be wrong), but i don't see how it supports the view you advanced in post 21.

on the subject of the great game, my view on russian backwardness comes from its lack of industrialisation; at the beginning of the 20th century around 85% of the population were engaged in agriculture and the consequent inability to produce goods needed for consumption or matériel for war. i don't really see what the great game has to do with any of that.

You said this:

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.

I took that to mean you assert that Russia wasn't Germany's great rival because Russia was technologically backwards; Britain and France, due to their wealth and industry, instead were Germany's main economic and diplomatic rivals.

By referencing the Great Game, I was countering the idea that Russia's backwardness somehow precluded it from exerted considerable geopolitical influence and garnering rivalries with far more industrialized nations, like Britain or Germany. It doesn't matter that Russia was not industrialized. It still exerted great power along its periphery, which of course included the Balkans and Mitteleuropa, bringing it into direct conflict with Austria-Hungary (and the Ottoman Empire) over the former and Germany over the latter.

As for everything else I posted, how do you not see how they support my view in post 21 which is that the world wars were essentially German and Russian affairs for control of Mitteleuropa? If ideas like Drang nach Osten and Ostsiedlung were so prevalent in the German ethos, particularly among the Kaiser and the elites, as well as Mitteleuropa as a pre-Nazi Lebensraum among German thinkers, how can you not infer the geopolitical intentions of German leadership in the days before the Great War?

Simply look at the sequence of events leading to the war:
July 28: Austria declares war on Serbia. Russia mobilizes.
July 31: Germany warns Russia to stop mobilizing.
August 1: Germany declares war on Russia. Germany and the Ottoman Empire sign an alliance.

As we all know, the western allies only got involved because of France's alliance with Russia and because Germany invaded France through Belgium, bringing Britain into the war. The West was the sideshow that, because of the stalemate and our Western bias, morphed into the main stage even though the war started in the east out of the German-Russian rivalry.

[C0ckney]

I took that to mean you assert that Russia wasn't Germany's great rival because Russia was technologically backwards; Britain and France, due to their wealth and industry, instead were Germany's main economic and diplomatic rivals.

that is what i meant, in a worldwide context, that is the 'competition' to be the greatest power. that doesn't mean of course, that there wasn't a rivalry between russia and germany and that this rivalry wasn't important.

By referencing the Great Game, I was countering the idea that Russia's backwardness somehow precluded it from exerted considerable geopolitical influence and garnering rivalries with far more industrialized nations, like Britain or Germany.

not wanting to go too far down this sidetrack, i will limit myself to saying that it was a competition to dominate states that were far less advanced, organised or wealth than either of the two participants. moreover, it is better thought of as a competition between russia and the british raj, which was itself engaged in ruling through diverse means and with a variable level of power and control in 'its' territory, rather than directly between britain and russia (although this does start to change in the latter part of the 19th century).

It doesn't matter that Russia was not industrialized. It still exerted great power along its periphery, which of course included the Balkans and Mitteleuropa, bringing it into direct conflict with Austria-Hungary (and the Ottoman Empire) over the former and Germany over the latter.

As for everything else I posted, how do you not see how they support my view in post 21 which is that the world wars were essentially German and Russian affairs for control of Mitteleuropa? If ideas like Drang nach Osten and Ostsiedlung were so prevalent in the German ethos, particularly among the Kaiser and the elites, as well as Mitteleuropa as a pre-Nazi Lebensraum among German thinkers, how can you not infer the geopolitical intentions of German leadership in the days before the Great War?

Simply look at the sequence of events leading to the war:
July 28: Austria declares war on Serbia. Russia mobilizes.
July 31: Germany warns Russia to stop mobilizing.
August 1: Germany declares war on Russia. Germany and the Ottoman Empire sign an alliance.

As we all know, the western allies only got involved because of France's alliance with Russia and because Germany invaded France through Belgium, bringing Britain into the war. The West was the sideshow that, because of the stalemate and our Western bias, morphed into the main stage even though the war started in the east out of the German-Russian rivalry.

that's one way of looking at it, but allow me to present an alternative point of view. ostsiedlung has been a german aim since about the time of otto the great, and so was of course a factor in german attitudes and approaches towards their eastern neighbours. however world war one was about far more than that. germany wanted to challenge britain's dominance of the seas by building a powerful navy of its own. its participation in the scramble for africa shows that it wanted to challenge britain and france for colonial possessions. it's clear that german aims prior to world war one cannot be restricted to the advancement of traditional german goals in the east.

also to address the point made about the plans to knock out france quickly, there are a couple of things to note. firstly, the germans naturally wanted to fight a two front war for as short a time as possible. france is small and has a mild climate, and russia is large and inhospitable, therefore a relatively short advance from germany can reach paris whereas the russian capital cannot be reached except by a campaign which is necessarily long and difficult. the experience of the franco-prussian war in 1870-1 must have suggested to the germans that a reasonably quick victory was possible against the french. also. if we look at how the actual fighting went in the first world war, the germans switched focus back and forth from the two fronts after the failure of the initial attempt to take paris.

[Donegeal]

Between Ordernin and Al, Al clearly has the upper hand. Show some supporting facts others than "This is what I think, so there!".

[molly bloom]

What if Franz Ferdinand and his wife had not been killed 100 years ago? Would WW1 have been averted or would there have, inevitably, been another cause of war which would have resulted in an equally disastrous global war?

Austria-Hungary was on its merry way to being a second rank power. It's only outlet for empire building was in the Balkans, it had an heir to the throne who detested the Magyars and was at odds with the current Emperor and there were plans (hopes?) to extend as far south as Thessalonika.

Nicholas II Romanov was an incompetent. His wife was loathed by all and sundry (save Rasputin and Nicholas) his government was oppressive and looking for a victory after humiliation at the hands of the Japanese. Russia's industrialization was gaining pace, but so was civil unrest.

Germany had a mentally unstable emperor who loathed the Russian tsar and who had an absurd overestimation of his own abilities.

France had a well-nursed grudge against Germany for the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alasace-Lorraine.

Stand well back as the pot bubbles and boils over.

[molly bloom]

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 .

I found a postcard from a real-life Irish namesake of mine sent from the trenches to Dublin during WWI.

Mr McGuinness said the fact that over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the war and over 49,000 were killed showed the human impact of the war on the island of Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/records-of-49-000-irish-wwi-dead-in-new-digital-archive-1.1651010