Historical Finger Pointing, Issue I: World War I - Page 3

Dry · September 13, 2002, 06:39

In fact I don't know enough to pick one. So, let's try to put the blame on the US.
... let's be creative here... (smoke, smoke...)

first try (easy): the jewish-masonic plot.
Always very popular, so I think it's possible to get something here.
Let me think ...
So, WW1, was in fact a jewish-masonic plot in order to kill as many good white christians as possible. The result of WW1 was that many europeans died and US only came at the end to collect the pieces.
... I think I get something here. Let's continue...
It is well know that the US is a masonic creation, so it is logic to think that the whole plot for Europe's destruction was remotely controled from Washington.
So yes, the blame is to be put on the jewish financers and the free masons in the US.

Ok, this one was easy... only a warm up... let's try it harder...

wait... thinking... colonialism... iirc my history lessons there was also something like UK, France, Russia, US had colonies or where big enough to assure raw material independency (autarcy), Germany not. One reason of WW1 was also that big empire autarcy philosophy...
So let's try a colonialist explanation...
So, UK is evil, because it had taken the best places (costals)...
Geez, how will I get to the US here... hard, hard... let's continue...
OK, US was the biggest UK colony, but was now independent... with Germany they were the last to enter the race, they were thus concurrent... Would US not be independent, it would still be in the British empire and thus self-sufficient. Germany would had it easier to get colonies and the "drang nach osten" would have been lower.
So the blame is to the US who declared independency
Gees, that one was hard. Still looks too weak, but I feel it can be reworked to get something really psychedelic... give me more time (and mushrooms) and I'll find a good one.

Alexander's Horse · September 13, 2002, 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Orthodox in 1934 maybe. You gotta get new text books down there.

You really are a f*ckwit aren't you.

Read the thread and you'll find the citation. The Fischer thesis has been the orthodoxy since 1961. Germany caused world war I.

It is a tribute to Fischer's scholarship and 15 years of painstaking research that his thesis has not been seriously challenged in 40 years. Germany caused World War I.

There hasn't been an important academic book on the subject in 20 years.

Boris Godunov · September 13, 2002, 09:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

You really are a f*ckwit aren't you.

Outta my thread. I said in the first post, no personal insults.

Boris Godunov · September 13, 2002, 09:33

As for the silly notion there are no recent scholarly books on the subject of the causes, here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...170383-5198431

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...e&s=books&n=53

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

And those are only a few. One book I couldn't remember the name of, that came out only this year I believe, is a scholarly work that put the blame squarly on the UK.

So I'd say it's still a hotly debated issue. I've never had any history professor who said Fischer's work was ther last word on the matter, and his work is full of flaws.

Andrew1999 · September 13, 2002, 10:10

Events outside of Europe had almost no effect on starting WWI except by occasionaly raising tempers. But those colonies were just considered pieces on a board, to be arranged by conferences and treaties and the occasional military bluff. It was only territories in Europe that were really consiedered important enough to go to war over.

Imran Siddiqui · September 13, 2002, 10:11

Horsie is just trolling. He knows Fischer is full of flaws. It was accepted by a lot because a) someone blamed his own country for starting the war and b) some people were already leaning towards German culpability and this cemented their cause.

Germany had plans for expansion is really amusing. It seems to ignore that Russia, France, and even Austria had those same plans (though in different directions). Of course the war could not start without Germany, but it also could not start without Russia, Austria, or Serbia as well.

We dealt with Fischer in our University WW1 class, but he was just part of the matter. There was no talk that he was the last word on the matter, just that he was a famous writer of it. Funny that people don't like to point out his bias. Being a socialist, you'd naturally think he'd like to slander a monarchist government of Germany.

But if you are looking for most culpability, I'll still say Russia. Damn commies

.

notyoueither · September 14, 2002, 05:52

What, has this one gone away?

TheStinger · September 14, 2002, 05:56

I think we might be ready for issue 2 now

Adalbertus · September 14, 2002, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
We talking about who caused the war. Germany caused the war.

We are doing historical finger pointing. I've got still all my fingers, so I can lefthandedly point to five nations. Which I will do

Two more serious notes:
I have a serious distrust in scientific authorities, especially when used to block further discussion (which is what you did). Unfortunately this is a technique widely used in the humanities when uncomfortable new ideas come up. It is very detrimental to the respective subject.

Second, what I see as much more important in the historical account is the atmosphere so eager for war which arose in Europe in the beginning of the 20th century (and Wilhelm II. had well played his part in this, but he was by far not the only one). Sitting there and being happy that others do the job on promoting war is not a noble attitude. That's why I point to a lot of countries.

Boris Godunov · September 14, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think we might be ready for issue 2 now

I have a few possibilities for the next issue, but am mulling over which one to do...

Faeelin · September 14, 2002, 14:39

I blame the The Austrians for the war: They gave the serbs an incredibly unreasonable list of demands, and the sebs agreed to all but one. They invaded.

I blame the French for the european war: The russians mobilized for war. Germany warned them to stop, but Russia refused. France, rather than asking its ally to end the preparations for war, promptly did so as well. France constantly, and violently, sought to confront Germany since the franco-prussian war. For the ocnsequences, they have none to blame but themselves.

Andrew1999 · September 14, 2002, 15:34

Almost nobody thought a general war would be a real disaster. The French, the Germans, the Russians, everyone believed that "home before the leaves fall" crap. So the idea of a huge war was not that terrible to a lot of people. This led to a lot of irresponsibility among the leaders of Europe.

JCG · September 14, 2002, 16:32

I believe the blame lies mostly on Serbia, the root of it all.

On the other hand, Russia and Germany did everything they could to create tension through their mobilizations and guarantees of support to Serbia and Austria respectively, so they both deserve a slap, too.

Wernazuma III · September 14, 2002, 18:05

Wow, I never thought that so many think Austria is to blame for WWI. Austria had no interest in a large conflict, we just wanted to start a "war against terrorism". That's speaking anachronistically, but it's true in the largest part. Everyone knew Serbia was behind the assesination and we responded with war - that's not really unusual! Germany and Russia were those nations who made this conflict more than an Austrian-Serbian issue...

Adalbertus · September 14, 2002, 18:27

Hm. I think Germany had at least no influence on what Russia did, after the alliance (which was forged by Bismarck) was broken. (Bismarck is one of the few politicians I respect by his abilities even if I don't agree with him).

Dr Strangelove · September 14, 2002, 19:53

Austria demanded that Serbia allow Austrian military police agents free reign to operate within Serbia even to the point of putting Serbian police under control of these agents. Suspect Serbian citizens were to be carted off across the border to Austria for trial without bothering with legal niceties. Austrian also demanded that it be given the right to censor Serbian press and schools. In effect Serbia would have surrendered its government to Austria for an indefinite period of time.

Serbia did offer to allow a neutral party in to observe the Serbian police investigation.

Austria subsequently occupied Serbia for 2 years during the war and never found concrete proof that the assassins were part of a larger plot. The bulk of the evidence was that the conspiracy consisted of less than a half dozen college kids acting on their own.

Felch · September 14, 2002, 20:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Ah well this where all this Germany wasn't to blame crap falls apart whether you believe Fischer or not. Germany had signed a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, which they violated without a second thought. In fact their whole war plan revolved around doing so.

Its rather perverse to blame Grey for Germany's flagrant violation of a solemn treaty. It never entered Grey's mind that Germany would not honour its obligations on Belgium.

Meanwhile in Berlin, Bethman Hollweg called the Belgian treaty a "scrap of paper", which shows the mentality of the Kaiser's government. Not much different to Hitler and Ribbentrop when it came to honouring international agreements. And you're saying these gangsters were innocent of causing the war? LOL.

The German war plan had to involve tearing into Belgium. The bulk of the Franco-German border is difficult hilly terrain. They had to invade Belgium out of military necessity. It wasn't a choice they made lightly, but considering how much easier and safer for their army, they felt compelled to take it.

They had offered Belgium neutrality if they allowed the Germans to pass through. Something America does quite often nowadays.

Nobody is saying Germany had no involvement in the start of the war. I included them, along with Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia.

I highly doubt your implied premise that Germany was the sole responsible power in the cause of WWI can really be valid given the desires for war that existed in many of the other governments. Germany may have been the most influential in starting the war, but it was greeted happily by the other combatants.

GeneralTacticus · September 14, 2002, 21:41

Quote:

I blame the French for the european war: The russians mobilized for war. Germany warned them to stop, but Russia refused. France, rather than asking its ally to end the preparations for war, promptly did so as well. France constantly, and violently, sought to confront Germany since the franco-prussian war. For the ocnsequences, they have none to blame but themselves.

Actually the French came to a deal with the Germans whereby they would stay out of the war if the Germans gave Alsace-Lorraine autonomy. Unfortunately the German chief of staff thought they couldn't turn the mobilization around towards Russia, so the war broke out anyway.

Mr. President · September 14, 2002, 22:00

I blame everyone, especially the guy (can't remember his name offhand) who shot the Archduke.

GeneralTacticus · September 14, 2002, 22:31

Gavrilo Princip, I believe.

Boris Godunov · September 14, 2002, 22:34

Come on, there's no way that guy could have ever anticipated his actions would have precipitated a world war.

I'm looking for nation blaming!

Imran Siddiqui · September 15, 2002, 00:44

Quote:

Austria subsequently occupied Serbia for 2 years during the war and never found concrete proof that the assassins were part of a larger plot. The bulk of the evidence was that the conspiracy consisted of less than a half dozen college kids acting on their own.

Actually they were connected to the government. Their Black Hand Group was led by a member of the General Staff of Serbia (the name escapes me at the moment).

GeneralTacticus · September 15, 2002, 00:50

I think his alias was Apis.

EDIT: I think the Serbian Prime Minister was also opposed to him.

Imran Siddiqui · September 15, 2002, 00:54

Yeah, that's it... I was trying to remember his real name

.

Mr. President · September 15, 2002, 01:19

Quote:

I'm looking for nation blaming!

Oh, fine.

In that case I blame . . . Albania!

GeneralTacticus · September 15, 2002, 01:19

Quote:

Yeah, that's it... I was trying to remember his real name

It was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, head of the Serbian military intelligence.

Edited to add quote.

Wernazuma III · September 15, 2002, 03:13

Austria acted pretty much the same to Serbia as the Russia is acting today against Georgia, what is/was not wise. But this can not be taken as guilt for a World War.

notyoueither · September 15, 2002, 03:36

The mobilisations were the key, and the match.

The Austrians moved on Serbia. At that point the czar had a choice, mobilise or not. He mobilised.

Next the kaiser. There is no way the Germans could sit and do nothing as the Russians mobilised. They were in worse shape (or better). Their plans all hinged on a two front war with Russia and France. All their planning meant that if they mobilised they had to attack France and they had to do it through Belguim. They go.

Next the French. Well, obviously they did not have much choice, did they? The rest of the dominos fall from there.

It was the Romanov, Nicholas. He had a choice; the best choice, but he knew no better than all the rest what would happen.

Tolls · September 16, 2002, 04:02

"Actually they were connected to the government. "

They were connected to elements in the military, not the government. The (relatively) new governemtn was opposed to disrupting Bosnia because of the inevitable backlash that would (and did) occur...they didn't want to give Austria the excuse it was looking for.

notyoueither · September 16, 2002, 04:05

How is the military not an arm of the government?