An interesting summary from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324
More telling might be the absence of any mention of the Allied nations ;P
Printable View
An interesting summary from the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324
More telling might be the absence of any mention of the Allied nations ;P
I see the first guy on the list says Germany. I think that is not just simplistic but also uninformed and pretty idiotic.
Serbia, with our without civil government knowledge was training terrorists. These terrorists killed the Austrian Crown Prince. From that point Austria was committed to punishing Serbia and likely incorporating it into their empire.
From that point it was Russia who wanted more influence in the region, France who wanted revenge on Germany, and Britain who felt Germany was mustering in on their turf.
Germany was boneheaded when it came to preventing the war but they sure were one of the lesser players in starting hostilities.
The trouble with the history of WW I is that everyone still wants to believe all the nonsensical propaganda put out by their side.
I blame capitalism.
I have a link to a very short book on that very subject. More an essay really. Only about 8 pages on the pc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
It was written by an American Marine Corps General. He was a two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, to boot.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/...racket.html#c1
Those historians in the OP's article who come from/work in Britain blame anyone but good old Blighty, the others have a more balanced view. What a surprise.
Read "small wars" by Max Boot. Smedly Butler was awe-inspiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Because Britain is clearly the cause of it all,Quote:
Originally Posted by El Barto
I mean, they funded the assassination, sent the declaration of war from Austria to Serbia via the Royal Mail, using the royal connections further to cause postal delays so the Tsar and Kaiser to go to war with eachother, then they secretly even convinced the 'Kaiser' that good ol' Blightly won't join the war if they steamroll over Belgium and do a pre-emptive strike against France.
Yes... those biased historians all have it wrong. Shame on them.
Winnie was younger then and feeling his oats a bit. After all, he had Jellicoe and this spiffy navy and cock-all to do with it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Actually, I do wonder what the case against Great Britain is. Did they do something wrong, or is it just a case of there is so much blame to spread around and not enough people to pin it all on?
Great Britain had a problem with Germany becoming an economic power to challenge them.
Germany didn’t help matters by building a modern fleet (for the time). Britain was looking for an excuse to get involved. Naturally they had to teach their upstart cousins that to challenge them was folly.
However, the real cause of the wider war was France. Their thirst for vengeance was the real cause.
Of course any one of the powers acting like an adult rather than a spoiled child would have upset the balance and defused the situation.
It has to be one of the stupidest wars of all time. Every participant should feel a sense of shame.
As for Britain, they had two ways of ending the conflict before it started.
1) The could have said unconditionally they supported France, thus giving Germany pause before a preemptive strike.
2) They could have said we are under no circumstances getting involved. This would result in France biting off more than they could chew and being more open to a diplomatic solution.
By doing neither they allowed the situation to escalate. They wanted Germany humbled but mostly they wanted to stop its economic expansion.
In some ways this makes Britain one of the worst opportunists of the war, along with Italy and Japan.
Steps they could have taken that might avert war hardly qualify as "Who started WW1?"
GB already had hers.
Look to the east end of the continent. Austria jealously tried to hang on to what they had left, and the Germans/Russians jealously wanted some more for themselves. France needed to get over being so butthurt. The stomping they took a generation earlier was so decisive they should have just let those memories die.
I don't see how any behavior on the part of Turkey or America, no matter how adult, could have prevented the war. They might have avoided getting into the war, if they had been more mature, but that is a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
1: If Britain had offered unconditional support for France, that would have encouraged the French to seek out an opportunity for war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
2: If Britain had said that they would not get involved under any circumstances, that might encourage Germany to go to war with France, and we would be blaming the British for giving the Germans a "blank check."
I'm not saying that Britain's government was any more mature than anyone elses. I'm just saying that I don't see how the British were supposed to know ahead of time what policy would most likely result in peace. To know that, they would have to know exactly how each government would respond to any given situation.
An arms race and continued expansionist, aggressive policies were not the policies a peace-seeking government would enact. All the great powers of the time were determined to expand, it was bound to happen.
[QUOTE=El All the great powers of the time were determined to expand, it was bound to happen.[/QUOTE]
This. It was pretty heady times; all went to war eyes wide open and reasonably sure of gaining something. Basically they all voted: Yes to rolling the dice, with dreams of filthy lucre floating in their heads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandy Blue
The Americans got involved due to a number of reasons. Wilson and an number of his people in government wanted the war and were looking for ways to get into it that the people would except.
Those more reluctant were finally convinced, just as Smedly Butler said, because they were protecting their moneyed interests from a default on the debt.
Actually Germany did more than the others to avert the war. Getting France and Austria to the table was a problem.Quote:
1: If Britain had offered unconditional support for France, that would have encouraged the French to seek out an opportunity for war.
2: If Britain had said that they would not get involved under any circumstances, that might encourage Germany to go to war with France, and we would be blaming the British for giving the Germans a "blank check."
I'm not saying that Britain's government was any more mature than anyone elses. I'm just saying that I don't see how the British were supposed to know ahead of time what policy would most likely result in peace. To know that, they would have to know exactly how each government would respond to any given situation.
Germany did not want and did not expect to fight Great Britain. Their great naval build up was because they feared British power and they knew they couldn’t match it.
Both sides were arrogant and stupid. Germany may have been the most arrogant and stupid but it is a fine line.
The 5 main European Powers, GB, France, Russia, Germany, & Austro-Hungary were all worried about their Prestige. Italy was in it because they wanted to play with the big boys. They were too weak to do anything on their own. They had a treaty with Austria but wanted Austrian lands.
I am not even going into what happened in the Balkans. That is a bag of worms I am not sure even all of them understand.
Germany is technically guilty of issuing the first DOWs but it was already underway by then and it was only doing the obvious.
Well, that's a classic example of a strawman. Why do you put words in my mouth, Mr. Tiaexz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
It was more the lack of evidence other than a opinion on the matter. I was fabricating said evidence in a silly manner to make the opinion valid. No harm intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Barto