Page 2 of 4 First 12 34 Last

Do you have any idea what kind of crap mead really is...?

It's a fruity wine. With an awful taste. And more than just slightly gay.

Reply

I thought Norway was known for it's awesome mead? I think nobody seems to care because they aren't invading the coasts of England and ransacking monasteries anymore.

Reply

You obviously misunderstood my intention. I wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, I was merely trying to point out that there's a lot more to the Balkans than the wars in the 90's and that there's nothing so grand about Scandinavia and Scandinavians that gives them the right to look down on people, in the Balkans or anywhere else.

It's especially distasteful when it's done by people from some powerful countries in the west, as precisely those countries, together with Russia, had their big, fat, greedy paws into every little thing that's happened in the Balkans in the last 200 years.

Reply

Couldn't be more accurate.

Reply

Well, I'm a conservative in this matter, that's bad enough, keep it as it is and let Moldavia be it's own state, AFAIK it wants to be just that, is that and why should it not stay that? If they're having a revolution, let them have their revolution, but if you want them to belong to Romania in your reactionary ways, then let's re-establish pre-WW1 Germany as well.

Reply

Bah, we should just reestablish Roman Empire and be done with it...

Reply

We'd be national brethren! True Romans and followers of Caesar unlike those German barbarians and their Kaiser immitation. The new Roman Empire wouldn't probably last as long though.

Reply

I'm with the anti-communists. Furtermore, I think (re-)unification with Romania, including Trans-djenstria!, would best safeguard peace and stability in the long run.

And Russia ought to keep its clutches off of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.

Reply

I'll try to hold ethnic nationalism, violence and genocide in a better light, as per your request .

So? How is it relevant? I can't point out the long history of nationalism, war and genocides that have occured in the Balkans because you're a nationalist? I'm sorry, apparently facts don't sit well with you.

You continue to bring up Scandinavians like it matters. This thread isn't about Scandinavia, bringing them up is merely starting a pissing contest and trying to divert from the real point.

Reply

t's especially distasteful when it's done by people from some powerful countries in the west, as precisely those countries, together with Russia, had their big, fat, greedy paws into every little thing that's happened in the Balkans in the last 200 years

Not relevant? Would love to hear more about that.

Reply

What does me being a Westerner have anything to do with this? Am I not allowed an opinion due to the fact I'm from a country that bombed Serbia?

Reply

You can point out anything you like, freedom of speech is wonderful thing. Facts do sit well with me, it's just that you've got them wrong. Nationalism appeared in the Balkans at the beginning of 19th century, so there's no long history of nationalism here, no longer than anywhere else in Europe, anyhow.

For violence and wars, well, you got me there. Did happen, but here some news for you (don't spread it around, it's a very carefully guarded secret, I could get in trouble for sharing this with you) - new research show that it's not a concept unique to the Balkans and that in fact there have been nationalistic wars, ethnic violence and war crimes all around the world throughout history and that unfortunately there will probably be more in the future. Yeah, I know, I too was surprised by this radical new information. I'm very sorry if it bothers you that I refuse to feel particularly guilty and morally inferior because the wars in the 90's or those before them. I can only hope that it won't happen again, here or anywhere else. Unfortunately, it probably will, not a perfect world, bummer...

I feel there's a lot more the people living in the Balkans than nationalism and the ethnic hatred and I will always react when someone tries to say otherwise. About all the people living here, Serbs or Greeks, Bulgarians or Romanians, Croats or Albanians... If that offends you or makes me a nationalist in your opinion, well, frankly, it speaks more about you than about me... You (or anyone else for that matter) may feel morally superior to me or people around me who live in my country and those who live in neighbouring countries, but hey, I don't have to agree and I'll continue to consider people from this tiny little part of the world equal to people living anywhere else.

Reply

Show me where I said the Balkans is only a place of nationalism and war, show me where I disprespected the Balkan people, show me these accusations you like to make about me.

Yes, there will, due to the vast ethnic make up and the nationalism. Don't downplay the fact that the Balkans is, and has been, a hotspot of ethnic violence and absurd nationalism.

Never mentioned this, stop making stuff up.

I never said the Balkans is just nationalism and hated, again, stop making stuff up. It is undeniable that the Balkans has historically has such a vast make up of various peoples that it has been a spot filled with ethnic violence and nationalism. If that offends you, I don't apologize because it's fact.This isn't about the people, this is about simple history.

When have I ever mentioned anything about the people other than the nationalism and ethnic violence?

Never said this, stop making stuff up.

When did I say Serbs are Devils? Where did I say Bosniaks deserve death? I did not. Stop making stuff up.

It's absurd to think you'd find it offensive when we mention that the Balkans (Your homeland, which makes sense) has been a cluster of genocide and ethnic tension, and that this whole "MOLDAVIA IS ROMANIA" and "MOLDAVIA HATES ROMANIA" is nothing new. I find it even more absurd that you'd even mention Scandinavia in some stupid attempt to somehow downplay facts.

Reply

I'll send you a PM...

Reply

Nothing, I was just pointing out that Sarmatian is correct. The Balkan has always been the playing field of the powers, you can't just take out a single event even if it was rather horrible.

to give you a bit of an idea



edit, I put some spoiler tags there for a reason, no direct link to nasty imagery but if you are looking for them you will certainly find them, so viewers discretion be warned.

Reply

I quite like the idea that we can blame world war 1 on the balkans...

Picture the scene its 1911 and europe is a place full of hippies and peace activists, France and Germany are best buddies and everyone loves everyone else and they all decided to make a pact to be friends forever and never declare war...

The evil residents of the Balkans saw all this happiness and couldn't bare to see such a peaceful happy world, and with a single shot they turned the best buddies in europe all into raging enemies...

Europe was a tinder box, the assassination was simply the spark... i think alot more blame has to go on the major powers for setting the scene...

Reply

So the morale is that wounds never heal and that blood/ethnic affliations shall always be more powerfull than racial/religious/national/international ones.No matter what actions those superpowers might undertake to supress blood/ethnic affiliations their best hope is assimilation/uprooting. You can't create a multiethnic entity without assimilating the main ethnicities.
You can't claim to preserve the ethnic identity of your minorities while in a national state and still exist as a national state.
Just like Texas. No matter how many Spanish or US immigrants flock there to eat quality beef or just witness a rodeo, at the end of the day Texas remains Texas with Chuck Norris as its Prophet.
Same goes for each spot on the face of this Earth.

Reply

To be precise, Austria, France and a certain Wilhelm II., his political staff and everyone who actually liked this airhead.

Austria for being a bunch of roalists who actually cared about their inbred royal family members so much to declare a war and risk thousands of lives for the death of one.
France for wanting the war and indirectly telling Germany they'd fall into our backs once the war started.
And Wilhelm II. and large parts of the german population who also wanted "a place under the sun", ruined all the diplomatic efforts of their predecessors and then gave those royalists mentioned above a blank cheque.

Oh and then I guess everyone else was looking forward to the heroic slaughter as well, so yes, it's hard to make out anyone specific to blame, but it was easy for the victors.

One just gets the impression that some parts of the eastern european/balkan population have not really left such nationalistic mindsets behind, but then neither have some western countries, I can think of one that always has to have a flag in the background of every TV news show and at least one that thinks it is so great it doesn't need anyone else.

Reply

I like how Texas has become the benchmark for comparison in the Tavern. My work is done.

Reply

I think Austria deserves a good share of the blame... of the demands they made on serbia (IIRC) the only one that serbia rejected was ceeding land to Austria... every other condition they asked for was met...

I can't understand how Germany was so confident, if the Russians hadn't had thier revolution they would have been fighting on two fronts...

I think the two other major powers deserve thier share of blame as well

Russia helped start the thing then went and had a revolution

Russia and France had a pact that if one was attacked the other would attack.... this strengthened thier confidence and made Germany more angry/scared basically made them feel under threat... to which they responded aggressively...

Im not sure what to put down to Britian but by simply being a mjor power and part of the network of alliances they helped encourage the march to war...

Everyone was well up for it though... apparently they were going to win by Christmas... all of them... I guess they could all be called extremely arrogant in that way...

One just gets the impression that some parts of the eastern european/balkan population have not really left such nationalistic mindsets behind, but then neither have some western countries, I can think of one that always has to have a flag in the background of every TV news show and at least one that thinks it is so great it doesn't need anyone else.

You want to hear some petty nationalism... talk to a welshman about the english

When we started talking nationalism that country sprung to my mind as well... Im guessing Israel would be fairly nationalistic, seige mentality combined with glorious victorys whilst outnumbered, I find thiers somewhat more understandable...

Reply

Husar, you forgot about Russia.

Reply

One last one!

IIRC (thinking about making this a permanent disclaimer in my sig) from a great argument Ser had with ?? about WW1, I learnt that Russia and France mobilised thier troops before Germany did, mobilisation was all but a declaration of war as the powers simply couldn't mobilise them and have them sitting there...

lot less sure this bit but i think the Germans declared war and then mobilised thier troops... which seems the proper way to do it... this did mean however that Germany declared war before France and Russia... which gives out blame rights to French and Russians when not looking fully into the history...

Reply

They'd already begun mobilizing under their "threat of war" declaration. At worst they were a day behind. Germany needn't have declared war on France, however. Even though the Schlieffen plan was the dominant model, they did have an East Front only alternative that had been constantly updated. They COULD have forced France to choose to be the aggressor -- and England would not have come in.

I always wondered what would've resulted...but that's fare for the Monastery.

Reply

It's a bit more complicated that. Austrian annexation of Bosnia had a lot to do with that. Serbia was outraged by that like a ditched woman and complained to the Russians. Russians said "ok, we'll put some pressure on the Austrians, don't you worry about it". Then Germans confirm to Austrians "we've got your back, knock yourself out". Russia decides Austria and Germany are a bit too much at the moment, backs down and loses face.

Come 1914, similar situation, Austria threatens war, has German backing. Russia supports Serbia again, condemns the assassination but warns Austria in no uncertain terms that it won't tolerate attack on its ally. Russia is in much better position now, being allied with France and starts mobilizing troops along Austrian border. Germany panics because their entire war plan is based on defeating France first. They demand that Russian stop mobilizing on Austrian border at that the refusal would mean war. Russia refuses and then starts mobilizing forces on the German border. UK tries to organize a peace conference between Russia and Austria (and France and Germany as their allies). Russia and France agree, Germany refuses and advises Austria to do the same. Austria attack Serbia. Kaiser starts having second thoughts but all the wheels are already set in motion. Russia declares war on Austria. Germany declares war on France and Russia. In UK there is still no consensus, they only agree to close the channel to belligerent vessels. Germany demands right of passage through Belgium. Belgium refuses, citing the treaty of neutrality, signed by France, UK and Prussia. Germany declares war on Belgium, Britain then declares war on Germany.

There's a lot blame to go around.

Serbia sees itself as "Balkan Piedmont", wants to organize all South Slavs in a single state. Relatively strong war lobby, but doesn't want war in 1914. Two Balkan Wars just ended, country is in bad shape, needs to recover. Time works for Serbia, Austrian position is weakening daily and Russian is strengthening.

Austria - knows its position is weakening, opposed it are more compact national states. Serbian power is rising and it may bring complications to their land in the Balkans and among Slavic population in the dual monarchy. Wants to deal with Serbia as soon as possible. Entire government wants war, Franz Joseph is too old to do anything.

Russia - uncomfortable with German-Austrian alliance in the middle of Europe. Bound by treaty with Serbia, can't afford to lose face again and leave its ally hanging.

Germany - afraid of Russo-French alliance, feels isolated, Austria only ally. Defeat of Austria means Germany is practically alone. Worried about Russian army reform after Russo-Japanese war. Wants to expand colonial possessions.

France - resentment after the defeat in 1871, uncomfortable with a powerful Germany next to it and bound by alliance with Russia.

UK - isn't sure what its supposed to do, feels honour bound to assist the French, also fearful of balance of power that would be in Europe should Austria and Germany prevail, which would also bring a lot of problems for its colonial possessions.

If I had to delegate guilt, I'd say: 1.Austria, 2. Germany, 3. Russia, 4. France, 5. UK. Didn't put Serbia simply because it's not an important factor and even if it wanted war it would have to abandon it if a compromise between the great powers was reached. Like in the case of Austrian annexation of Bosnia some time before ww1, Serbia could bitch and moan but wouldn't be able to do anything.

Reply

Russia at the very least is as or more guilty than Germany, and possibly also France. I don't disagree with Austria at the top of the list, or the UK at the bottom.

Reply

I knew about the chain of alliances... I did not know about the Austrians snatching a 'province' (TW term) what year was this ?

I also didn't know about the British attempt at a peace conference.. they were still complicit in the thing... but i think i will judge them less harshly next time I talk of it..

I like the description of UK's entry into the war, something like Britian has gone to war over a scrap of paper (belgian treaty)

Also the various descriptions of the countrys were intresting... I plan on doing a 5000 word essay on the causes of WW1 so this is all really helpful stuff...

Reply

1878 , the Russians had gone to war with Turkey and they had done a deal with the Austrians so Austria would not object to the formalisation of the independant Balkan nations and wouldn't object to the Russian territorial claims , the price Austria demanded for the deal was Bosnia .
So as samartian says the Serbians complained to the Russians about the evil Austrians taking the Turkish land and the Russians told the Serbs ooooo them nasty austrians look what they did to you, but it was the Russians who had done the deal with the Austrians in the first place so it was them who was playing the serbs as muppets .

Reply

Intresting...

Reply

I guess the problem was that Germany inquired what France would do and france indirectly said they'd attack, now the problem was most likely that once france would attack the Schlieffen plan might not have worked that well anymore, so we took the initiative. Of course France still hated us for 1871 and wanted revenge, that's what you get when you can't let go which is why we don't demand Prussia back.

Of course I blame the german government for completely ruining all relationships except with Austria, maybe they were afraid of a two-front war etc. but they brought themselves into this situation, afaik it were to a large extent the germans who did not want to renew all the treaties Bismarck had established to secure the status quo after forming Germany and it was also the german government that did not want a treaty with the UK when they offered one. IMO Wilhelm II. was completely full of himself, wanted to gain prestige, show might and power, and ended up looking like a fool and being partly responsible for the deaths of millions. It's not like WW1 was the first time he made a fool of himself either, he managed to create a few crises and insult a few foreign officials before that as well.
I'm not sure about the military leadership before WW1 but the companies who wanted colonies to enrich themselves just supported his behaviour, if I'm not mistaken they are also partly responsible because they contributed to the whole race between nations thing in which Germany was way too late anyway.

To quote one of my favourite Germans:

Reply

Grizz:

I recommend Tuchman's Guns of August. The Germans truly believed that:

1) The Russians couldn't mobilize properly and begin a meaningful offensive in less than 6 weeks, more probably 8.

2) That the Schleiffen plan would yield a decisive field battle that broke the French Army within 6 weeks, allowing them to leave siege and covering forces and heavily reinforce the East just in time to stop the Russians.

The Germans were right, but also wrong. The Russians DIDN'T mobilize properly, but they got their armies facing Prussia rolling in 4 weeks by skimping on the others. They were logistically up in the air and miserably coordinated, but they did attack at least 2 weeks before the Germans thought was possible. Tannenberg smashed them, and the Russians took months to reorganize, but several corps of German troops had already been withdrawn from the West.

The Germans really did come pretty close to their decisive field battle, but at the very end they were even more tired than the Allies facing them, light in numbers by a few corps, hadn't transferred enough from the Strasbourg front towards Belgium, and dismissed Galieni's forces in Paris (giving the Allies a flank).

Even so, it was a near run thing.

Italy, part of the Central Powers Alliance, knew of the Schlieffen plan and when it went toes up they made sure they DIDN'T join in on Germany's side. Coming in for the Allies, this gave BOTH Germany and AH responsibilities on two fronts.

Reply

Page 2 of 4 First 12 34 Last