It was the last gasp of Heirhead Supremacy. They hoped to kill off or demoralize the unprivileged with this class cleansing.
The JEWS!!! were behind that asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs! I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that there weren't any people around back then. You must be one of the JEWS!!! who are trying to re-write our Bible! The world didn't begin until 4444 BC, so there were plenty of people back then and just like now, they were all controlled by the JEWS!!!
I DO hope you realize I was making a joke, satirizing the Wyrd of Gawd, (who maybe was making one himself. John Keegan seems to think it was those entangling alliances, as does Barbara Tuchman, but both also agree that a good part of the war was the Army's seeming obsession with Plans, all of which had to rush into operation quickly to work. This reliance on Great Plans had started to be the fashion after the Franco-German fiasco of 1870 and by 1914 had Europe champing at the bit, all the Army's top commands desperate to put their Plans into operation before the others. The irony is that this very thing was both why they couldn't stop once they started and none of them actually worked in the end.
The Germans and Austrians were responsible for WWI. They wanted to dominate Europe. - - - Updated - - - Kaiser Bill was Queen Victoria's grandson. And so was King George V. So Kaiser Bill and King George V were indeed cousins.
According to some historians the lack of power in the Balkans especially after the weakining of Ottoman Empire had laid foundations for the WWI. The famous Eastern Question between the Great Powers begun actually following the Russo-Turkish War in 1774. The scenery after the war made the Great Powers to think on the future.
Not hardly. Europe has almost constantly been at war with itself, that had been going on for over 500 years before WWI even broke out. And certainly a war almost 150 years prior had little impact. if you are going to try and point the finger at an old war, you would be much better off pointing it at the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, or even the 1877 Russo-Turkish War. But the "Great Powers" had always been trying to take each other over, so I have no idea where you are really going with this.
I don't think anyone was really to blame. Britain wanted to curb an upstart Germany and France though likewise and Germany wanted to ruthlessly build an Empire of it's own. But that's just on the western front and there were alot of grievances across continental Europe. Another interesting motive for Germany was the need for oil particularly as the fashion for Navies was to convert from coal to oil and of course Germany did not have any oil fields. The idea of the war kicking off solely for revenge regarding the Archduke Ferdinand is a tad preposterous.
I doubt that, and nothing I have ever seen makes that look realistic. Germany already was an Empire, with colonies in Africa, the Pacific, South-East Asia, and a protectorate region in China. And if this war was for "Colonial Expansion", then the fighting would have been more concentrated in the colonies, not in Europe. In fact, if anything they wanted to shrink their Empire, since most of their colonies lost money. As for the Arch-Duke, his death triggered it, but it was the interlocking alliances, brinksmanship and old family issues that actually caused the war. Do not forget, that the Kaiser was cousin to both the King of England, as well as the Czar of Russia. Most of the Royal Families in Europe at this time were inter-related, a lot dealing with the exporting of Queen Vickie's genes.
Really? I think Versailles is a very good indicator. Only for 20 years or so. No. Because there were other issues. Downsizing the Germans was chief amongst them though which is my point. Not every empire makes a profit all the time for example the British empire only started to make a profit after the 1840's They did also dislike the public outcry from their actions against the Herero. I'm sorry but to imply that WWI was caused by a familial squabble is a little ludicrous.
That was common practice for thousands of years, known more commonly as "To the victors goes the spoils". France gets in a war with England, looses Canada. Mexico gets in a war with the US, looses everything between California and Texas, and what there is North of there. Spain gets in a war with the US, looses Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. That is just the common result of loosing a war, nothing more and nothing less. Turkey lost her external territories as well, and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist as a nation. Sorry, your example here fails the history test. Not quite true at all. The German Empire existed for just under 50 years, not 20 (founded in 1871, not 1898 ). And before that, it was a confederation of multiple City-States, some allied and some opposed with each other. Originally it was the German Confederation, but this broke down. Most of them did ally with what is known as the North German Confederation, which held roughly 75% of Germany. And it should by noted that they had a Constitution, Parliament, and Universal Suffrage. Quite enlightened for a European nation of the era. Before that it was known as the 900 year long Holy Roman Empire. The Last Emperor, Francis II abdicated after a crushing defeat during the Napoleonic Wars, dissolved his empire and then became the first Emperor of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia. I can only guess that actual history is not your strong suit. Read the above. And do not forget, most of those colonies were given to Germany either by other European nations, or in regions that none of them cared about. For example, one perfect example of a Colonial War is the Samoan Civil War, where Germany, the UK and US fought over the islands through proxy. In the end, it was essentially broken into 3 parts (and the German part was given to an even more expansionist and aggressive Empire - Japan). German East Africa was created in what is now Tanzania as a protectorate to eliminate the slave trade in the region. German West Africa (now Namibia) was actually originally a British Colony, that was turned over to Germany in 1842. German West Africa was created during the scramble for Africa that all European nations participated in. Then you have the 2 largest, the Kiautschou Bay and Chefoo concessions in China. These were awarded to Germany because she participated along with the rest of the European Powers (and US) in the Boxer Rebellion. This was by largest, and richest of her "colonies". And it was given to Germany by the other European Powers! I can not stress that enough. If the US was worried about a "German Empire", then why give them such a profitable area? They would have been shut out of the CHinese Land Grab, like Japan largely was. Sorry, you still fail to show any examples of this belief, you are simply making claims unbacked by history. I did not say that, I said it was caused by interlocking alliances and brinksmanship, the family issues was a minor part really but it did play a part. More then anything else it was the July Crisis and July Ultimatum that created the war. Given it's druthers, I have long believed that if not for the Alliance with France England would rather have actually sided with Germany for many reasons. Not only was France a traditional enemy, but many still had a dislike of Russia because of the Crimean War. The UK and Germany had never really been adversaries, but the UK and Russia were still an uneasy alliance.
There are reasons for wanting these territories. Yes I'm well aware of the history of Germany in the 19th century. I was referring to the overseas empire. Admittedly it was a little longer than twenty years but I was being rough in that regard. I take serious umbrage to that and if you continue in this fashion then we can forget this dialogue I should point out the blatant arrogance on your part for your failure to request elaboration on my statement. And furthermore I most strenuously take offence at such a level of personal commentary regarding my competence in this matter. No. Namibia was not British. Walvis bay was which was annexed to the cape colony government. What on earth does the US have to do with the cause of WWI? You didn't ask. I don't believe that to be the case as Germany was in a naval arms race with the UK which was an example of competition which among my claims.
cause of WW1....nationalism and military alliances ... if one alliance member got into a dispute with a member of another alliance they would all get dragged into the conflict
I think the theory was - the alliances were so extensive no one would risk a war that would bring 4 other countries in against you. Unfortunately Germany was not as smart as some wished
it wasn't Germany that started it, they were dragged in by their commitment to their defensive alliance...Austria declared war on Serbia, Serbia was allied to Russia which dragged in it's allies France and Britain, it just kept escalating... if the theory was no country would risk a war it never anticipated a small incident would create a domino effect...
But the people putting together these treaties were figuring Germany would avoid war with a nation on each border allied against her. The arguments for the cause of the war could fill a library, so I doubt we will come up with any history altering theories here. For every pet theory presented, we will find valid counterpoints being offered. But it still a bit of fun to debate
but your pov is from the allied side...the other side had the same opinion as the allies, germany was no more aggressive or imperialistic than the french or british...
Well generally it was agreed if the Germans had not backed the Austro-Hungarian empire in the dispute with Serbia, things may have turned out a lot different. Germany had the problem it could not build an overseas empire so it had to try and carve out a European one.
I'm doubtful that Germany could of expanded itself in Europe with the exception of Alsace Lorraine or maybe Poland if it dedicated itself towards war with Russia. I think that they were still focused on the overseas empire which was one of the reasons for the growth of German navy. The German relationship with Austria was not a brotherly one as they were rivals with one another and both were not interested in seeing the other being bigger than the other.
and the same could be said of russia not backing serbia and britain and france not backing russia... none of the european powers were in the position of carving out a european empire, napoleon tried that remember...and germany did have a substantial overseas empire
Numerous reasons of course war between france/germany in 1870's, nationalism, alliances, gross overcompetence that the war would be ended quickly on both sides,... The blame is to be shared by a lot of countries
I like the idea that Austria-Hungary was dealing with an internal affair, "the Serbs" - so it was the Russians. The Czar. Interesting concept. I hope some of our resident Russians will check in on this. Meanwhile, my choice is NOT on the list. No not "the Jews". Hint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI6ehlr33fU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA Moi No
