NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom (including myself) but WWI was not fighting against any particular terror or injustice. So I'd like to know what NSers think. Personally, I think we should remember WWI because millions of countrymen, mostly poor working class, gave their lives to defend their country. To sacrifice oneself to one's country is the highest act of bravery I can imagine.

I think a pillow should be the peace symbol, not the dove. The pillow has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn't have a beak to peck you with.

O.o That was too profound for me. please explain.

Of course we should, we might not look back on it as a war against evil but to simply forget it would be a huge injustice to the millions of men who died genuinely thinking they were fighting a war to end all wars.

Yeah, I agree w/ post above. It's just a pity that the youth of today ( I talk about Britain here), for the most part, doesn't give a shit about WWI/II or the sacrifices made.

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom (including myself) but WWI was not fighting against any particular terror or injustice. So I'd like to know what NSers think. Personally, I think we should remember WWI because millions of countrymen, mostly poor working class, gave their lives to defend their country. To sacrifice oneself to one's country is the highest act of bravery I can imagine.
Can you explain any reasons why we should not remember WWI? It's more than just the fact that countrymen gave their lives -- if that's the only reason we remember something, then we're missing out on a whole crap ton of history there. I think it's not only important to remember WWI in relation to WWII (and as an important backdrop as to some of the events that lead up to the second war), but also as a stand-alone as the largest war up to that point. Also all the nations that were negatively influenced, whether or not they were actually an active part of the fighting.
There's already too little attention paid to the overall history of WWI, in my opinion. Even the average "advanced" high school student who'll spend, oh...two weeks studying this war probably couldn't answer how several aspects actually contributed to the war. Many people dont' even know how WWI and Archduke Ferdinand are even related, what the significance of the Artois Offensive was, or whether or not Canada was even involved in the war.
People need to learn beyond simply their country's involvement in major world events.

Well yes, I do agree. When I was making the poll for this I thought "Well what other stuff should I define in the opening post?" and that's one of them. WWI was important not just because people died.

Every conflict should be remembered and studied. Not for a "let's get better at killing" reason, but a " how do we keep this from happening again" reason.

I don't have a very high opinion of the First World War. It was such a useless conflict. It was mostly because the leaders of Europe couldn't get along in the slightest. Such a petty war...

World War I should be remembered however, so we may learn from our past errors, and so that we may honor those who died, even if it was in vain.

O.o That was too profound for me. please explain.
Well, let me put it this way.

All those guys died horribly (most to disease and artillery fire and machinegun fire). And the leaders at all levels were terribly incompetent, and tended to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

When I die, I would like to go peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather did. Not screaming and yelling like the passenger in his car.

Yeah, I agree w/ post above. It's just a pity that the youth of today ( I talk about Britain here), for the most part, doesn't give a shit about WWI/II or the sacrifices made.


Yes here in America my peers, the youth, do not remember the sacrifices of those that gave their lives..Instead they just care about blowing up things in ww1/ww2 games. If they die, they just restart...That is a tragedy. We hae made it as to that the sacrifices made are now all in vain.

Every conflict should be remembered and studied. Not for a "let's get better at killing" reason, but a " how do we keep this from happening again" reason.

Why not devote our time instead to studying the periods of peace between wars and asking ourselves how we could keep them happening again and again?

WWI should be placed in every textbook worldwide as a tribute to human stupidity.

ww1 is far more important in my mind than ww2, one totaltarian regime was deafted in ww2 to allow another to flourish and multiply whoever won the result would have been the same. the same is not easily said about ww1.

I would think that the first world war is something that ought to be remembered, as was previously said, so something like it doesn't happen again (at least, not by chance, or indirect means). Alliances, and promises of military aid that are so all-consuming as they split a subcontinent into two armed camps are never a good thing, and, as shown by history, only a single spark is needed to blow the whole popsicle stand.

WW II wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for WW I and the resulting diplomatic actions and politics.

There is a saying that in a war, one side wins and the other learns. If there is one lesson we should have learned fromm WW I it's that no war should ever be blamed on one country alone, all wars are avoidable and it's always wise to treat even the loser fairly.

WW II wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for WW I and the resulting diplomatic actions and politics.

There is a saying that in a war, one side wins and the other learns. If there is one lesson we should have learned fromm WW I it's that no war should ever be blamed on one country alone, all wars are avoidable and it's always wise to treat even the user fairly.


couldnt have said it better

I should think the cause of WWI is fairly obvious - Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's desperation to start a war to quell internal pressures. In fact it is so obvious, Italy was able to disavow it's alliance with Germany and eventually fought on the side of france.

Of course, the wouldn't nearly have been as bad had Germany not forced the British Empire into the continental system of alliances with its aggressive and hypocritical naval strategy. (Who actually needs a fleet with a sea time endurance of under a week? I mean what use is it, other than to go to war with the Royal Navy.)

I would also imagine that Article 231 might not have been so strongly worded had germany not tried to start a European war at least three times in the seven years preceeding WWI.

Finally WWI did not cause WWII.

As to remembering WWI, most people have already forgotten anyway.

I should think the cause of WWI is fairly obvious - Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg's desperation to start a war to quell internal pressures. In fact it is so obvious, Italy was able to disavow it's alliance with Germany and eventually fought on the side of france.

Of course, the wouldn't nearly have been as bad had Germany not forced the British Empire into the continental system of alliances with its aggressive and hypocritical naval strategy. (Who actually needs a fleet with a sea time endurance of under a week? I mean what use is it, other than to go to war with the Royal Navy.)

I would also imagine that Article 231 might not have been so strongly worded had germany not tried to start a European war at least three times in the seven years preceeding WWI.

Finally WWI did not cause WWII.

As to remembering WWI, most people have already forgotten anyway.


why shouldnt germany have a fleet as big as Britain, who were we to deny them this?
who we were to deny them an overseas colony?
Bethmann-Hollwegs policies are no doubt a factor but surely the assasination of Franz Ferdinand was a bigger factor

ww1 did not cause ww2 you are right, it however sowed the seeds of hate which allowed a situation to arise in which another major european war to start.

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom(including myself)
Then what were you fighting *for?*

Yes. World War One was the end of the world as it was then, although it took another 30 years to fully finish off the Old World Order.

Of course we should, do not forget that every family in the United Kingdom endured a bereavement, and it was the single largest conflict, in terms of casualties incurred, ever fought by British combatents. Whilst it may not be so for the Americans, and we do welcome, revere and thank your involvement, the permeations and implications of the Somme, Paschendaele and Gallipoli are of considerably magnitude, and are yet present in the British psyche.

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom (including myself) but WWI was not fighting against any particular terror or injustice. So I'd like to know what NSers think. Personally, I think we should remember WWI because millions of countrymen, mostly poor working class, gave their lives to defend their country. To sacrifice oneself to one's country is the highest act of bravery I can imagine.
WW1 taught us that monarchy can never be trusted again. Millions died in terrible conditions for no reason at all really.

why shouldnt germany have a fleet as big as Britain, who were we to deny them this?

They didn't build a fleet to have one. The only purpose of the High Seas Fleet was the destruction of the Royal Navy in home waters/bombardment of England. It couldn't even leave the North Sea.

Britian needed the Royal Navy, it was a trading nation not really an industrial power and had built it up over hundreds of years to guard its overseas commerce and dominions. Destroying the Royal Navy would destroy Britian. The same did not hold true for Germany.

Considering that Britian was not even involved in the continental system of alliances at the time Germany began to build this fleet, it can be consideredd nothing other than an aggressive move, directly aimed at the british mainlaind and people. Pardon me for having no sympathy.

who we were to deny them an overseas colony?

No-one "denied" them overseas colonies. They even had a couple. The problem was that most of the globe had already gone. But hell, they could have invaded south america or something if it had meant that much.

Saying that, Germany, with the second highest GNP per capita and the highest standard of living in the world at the time WWI began, hardly "needed" colonies for its survival, or to underpin its economic system. (Whether or not colonies are even desirable in general is a whole other issue.)

So again I find it hard to be sympathetic.

Bethmann-Hollwegs policies are no doubt a factor but surely the assasination of Franz Ferdinand was a bigger factor.

Well, he pretty much told the Austrians to invade Sebia and gave them a blank cheque about Russia, so yah, they are more than a factor.

ww1 did not cause ww2 you are right, it however sowed the seeds of hate which allowed a situation to arise in which another major european war to start.

Look, by the time WWII was started (by germany again I may add), none of the provisions of Versailles were in effect, or had been, for seven years or so.

What's more, most of Versailles provisions had been watered down in the twenties, or not seriously enforced. Reparations had been massively reduced in the twenties also. Sure some people talk about how the Germans wanted to regain their honor or something, or how they only lost the war because of "November Criminals", but that starts to sound a little bit like Nazi propaganda to me.

Basically WWII was started because Hitler wanted to exterminate everyone who wasn't German/Nordic.

ww1 was important, it gave women the vote, and was the first war to affect civilians in a major way (germany bombed britian with zeppelins)

It started the league of nations and started the end of empires. Also, it was allways enevitable that all the major powers of europe duke it out again.

From a military history perspective, absolutely, tanks ,aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines (in a major way) and infiltration tactics and submachine guns were all used for the first time in war.

The fact it gave democracy to germany (short lived i know) and women the vote, yes , id say it should be remembered.

Look, by the time WWII was started (by germany again I may add), none of the provisions of Versailles were in effect, or had been, for seven years or so.

What's more, most of Versailles provisions had been watered down in the twenties, or not seriously enforced. Reparations had been massively reduced in the twenties also. Sure some people talk about how the Germans wanted to regain their honor or something, or how they only lost the war because of "November Criminals", but that starts to sound a little bit like Nazi propaganda to me.

Basically WWII was started because Hitler wanted to exterminate everyone who wasn't German/Nordic.

the idea of november criminals being widespread before the nazis being known outside munich sounds to me like someone hasnt read too much on this subject

ww2 started by germany, touchy subject britain and france declared the war so technically they started it, sure germany ignored the ultimatum but that wasnt starting a war( otherwise Serbia would be responsible for ww1)

explain why the nazi governments original stance was exclusionist on those, i.e remove them form the reich, if your last statement was 100% true

We already remember The Great War, aka, WWI. Remembrance Day is how we remember it. It was on November 11th, 1919 that the Treaty of Versailles was signed and it is November 11th that we use as Remembrance Day. So, it's not a question of should we, it should be, should we continue to?

We already remember The Great War, aka, WWI. Remembrance Day is how we remember it. It was on November 11th, 1919 that the Treaty of Versailles was signed and it is November 11th that we use as Remembrance Day. So, it's not a question of should we, it should be, should we continue to?


treaty if versaille was signed 28 june 1919, the armaciste(sp) was signed on the 11th of november

i think we should if people can confuse to such monumental events

treaty if versaille was signed 28 june 1919, the armaciste(sp) was signed on the 11th of november

i think we should if people can confuse to such monumental events
I knew I had the date right. just didn't remember which event. I knew there had been two signings, I just confused them.

Oh and it's Versailles; the "s" is silent.

Versailles was the critical point that could've prevented a second World War. The US should've told the rest of the Allies to STFU after the end of the first conflict and be more fair to the losers. They really tried to stick it to Germany for something that was sparked by an assassin in Central Europe. If the terms had been more fair, you wouldn't have had a Hitler, and thus, no second World War. Also, the Allies should've brought a fight to the Bolsheviks during the early years of the Revolution. Would've saved a century of misery.

I knew I had the date right. just didn't remember which event. I knew there had been two signings, I just confused them.

Oh and it's Versailles; the "s" is silent.

i know its my shiting typing skills at work

The US should've told the rest of the Allies to STFU after the end of the first conflict and be more fair to the losers.
US: stfu n00bz, central p0w0rz played well so let em off ez
Allies: fock no man, after how badly the germans nearly pwned us, I don't think so
central p0w0rz: d00d i woz lagging tell u
US: france thats the last fockin time we bail u out of trouble lol

"If WWI was an RTS" :D

US: stfu n00bz, central p0w0rz played well so let em off ez
Allies: fock no man, after how badly the germans nearly pwned us, I don't think so
central p0w0rz: d00d i woz lagging tell u
US: france thats the last fockin time we bail u out of trouble lol

"If WWI was an RTS" :D
I'm scared! :eek:

Personally i can understand why Britian and France wanted to punish Germany harshly after the war. America hadnt been through anything like Britain and especially France.

Personally i can understand why Britian and France wanted to punish Germany harshly after the war. America hadnt been through anything like Britain and especially France.


france wanted to punish germany severly while it had someone on their sideto back em up as germany kicks frances ass every time in a 1 on 1 fight

france wanted to punish germany severly while it had someone on their sideto back em up as germany kicks frances ass every time in a 1 on 1 fight

Indeed, and yet which battle, and where, "bled the German army dry"? I do believe it was Verdun, against, oh the irony, the French under Petain.

france wanted to punish germany severly while it had someone on their sideto back em up as germany kicks frances ass every time in a 1 on 1 fight

cough...1807...cough

cough...1807...cough

Oh yeah, who abolished the Holy Roman empire, the predeceesor to Germany. My word, it was Napoleon. Was he French?

We are getting off topic. The point of this thread is that WWI was Germany's fault.

We are getting off topic. The point of this thread is that WWI was Germany's fault.

No, I assure it was not. I passed two years of a GCSE history course studying quite why it was not, and penned a post graduate quality essay upon the topic. The "war guilt clause", in Versailles, merely alleged that it was, and, through allied blockade and threat of invasion, German diplomats, the so called "November Criminals", were compelled to accept such an allegation.

Does anyone here think that the War has had a positive role, considering that it destroyed "multi-national" empires? Is this to be viewed as positive?

No, I assure it was not. I passed two years of a GCSE history course studying quite why it was not, and penned a post graduate quality essay upon the topic. The "war guilt clause", in Versailles, merely alleged that it was, and, through allied blockade and threat of invasion, German diplomats, the so called "November Criminals", were compelled to accept such an allegation.

I suppose the space monkeys started it?

Does anyone here think that the War has had a positive role, considering that it destroyed "multi-national" empires? Is this to be viewed as positive?

Not in the slightest. It was to the detriment of the entire world The sole beneficient implication of the war was the destructionof the Tsar, and that was marred by the ascension of lenin.

I suppose the space monkeys started it?

Of course not. Germany was compelled to enact the Schlieffen plan to ensure it could stand alongside Austria-Hungary against Russia. Had it not done so, it would have fallen. The war, as with all the intricacies of history, was the implication of a conjunction of causes.

Not in the slightest. It was to the detriment of the entire world The sole beneficient implication of the war was the destructionof the Tsar, and that was marred by the ascension of lenin.
Yes, of course. But I was not interested as much in that (the Russian Empire didn't even "break" per se - whatever was lost was kept by Germany for a while, and much of it was taken over by Poland - there were only three* durable polities to emerge from it) as I was in the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman ones.



*four, if you believe that Poland was re-created by the Revolution, and not by the prior agreement between Pilsudski and the Germans.

Yes, of course. But I was not interested as much in that (the Russian Empire didn't even "break" per se - whatever was lost was kept by Germany for a while, and much of it was taken over by Poland - there were only three durable polities to emerge from it) as I was in the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman ones.

Both would have fragmented within a decade irrespective of the war, and the resultant states would have been a damnsight better divided than those created at Versailles.

We are getting off topic. The point of this thread is that WWI was Germany's fault.

um, no. Amoung other things, the British and French leadership felt threatened by the fact that Germany was building a railway through Turkey to Baghdad and bypassing the Suez Canal. The British wanted to preserve the status quo (their 500 year old empire) against anyone who could threaten them economically, which in the case of WWI was Germany- which hadn't even been a country for more than a few decades. Face it, the Brits just didn't feel like sharing.

Both would have fragmented within a decade irrespective of the war, and the resultant states would have been a damnsight better divided than those created at Versailles.
Actually, in Austria-Hungary, the most pertinent projects put forward by nationalist leaders of oppinion prior to 1917 (for any nationality outside Germanophones and Magyars) were not aiming further than a loose federation. Independence and (where Romania, Yugoslavia, Poland and Italy are concerned) absorbtion in other states where non-sequiturs up to the military breakup, Russian (November) revolution and Wilsonian principles. There was this Romanian dude who still held that all of Romania could join a reformed monarchy (this seemed especially fesable after the Central Powers kicked our asses all over the place and occupied Bucharest). The "nationalities" where not, and would not have been pissed at the monarchy, but rather at the Hungarians - they were expecting the Crown to grant them status as well, in what would've been an "United States of Austria" or some other such thing.
With the Ottomans, it's even more clear-cut. If Lawrence hadn't been encouraging the Meccan cause, the Ottoman caliphate would've found a loyal base in the Arab world for quite a while (the Balkans were entirely lost as a province by 1913, in any case).

Actually, I think people are concentrating too much on WWII and the Nazis. If you don't understand WWI, there is no way you could even hope to understand how Hitler could come to power.

And besides, it's nice for me to be able to say "we were just as good as you guys (morally speaking)" for a change.

Of course we should remember WWI, it is the ultimate example of a pointless war. The whole world went to war because they wanted more land and power, not for any 'noble' reason or preventative action - my apologies to any that think Archduke Ferdinand was worth millions of lives. If we did a bit of a better job remembering it, maybe we wouldn't go to war so much.

My word, it was Napoleon. Was he French?

Nope, nor was Hitler German.

Nope, nor was Hitler German.
Both of them were what they chose to be: they had inclusive views on nationality in this regard (to Napoleon the Corsicans were French - and they still are French in the eyes of most French people today; to Hitler the Austrians were German - and also to a lot of Austrians, most of them not connected to the Nazis in any way).

Both of them were what they chose to be: they had inclusive views on nationality in this regard (to Napoleon the Corsicans were French - and they still are French in the eyes of most French people today; to Hitler the Austrians were German - and also to a lot of Austrians, most of them not connected to the Nazis in any way).
Well, the modern Austrian would probably punch you if you called him German...
But Hitler at least cared little about nationality, and more about race. Whether you come from Austria, Norway, Britain or France - as long as you approximate an "Aryan", you were good.

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom (including myself) but WWI was not fighting against any particular terror or injustice. So I'd like to know what NSers think. Personally, I think we should remember WWI because millions of countrymen, mostly poor working class, gave their lives to defend their country. To sacrifice oneself to one's country is the highest act of bravery I can imagine.
I think we're all a little young to remember WW1. Maybe we can just commemorate it, instead. Something like a Memorial Day, maybe?

Of course we should, we might not look back on it as a war against evil but to simply forget it would be a huge injustice to the millions of men who died genuinely thinking they were fighting a war to end all wars.

And the rest of the world says Amen :)

I think we're all a little young to remember WW1. Maybe we can just commemorate it, instead. Something like a Memorial Day, maybe?
Cha, please.....it's been done :p

Well, the modern Austrian would probably punch you if you called him German...
Probably. But so would many Bavarians... (see my point?).
Hitler would not agree on the "Kleindeutsche", "Protestant", Bismarckian solution. He was adverse to religion, and would not go around encouraging regional identities (be they Austrian or Prussian).
The Anschluss was also a Austrian social-democratic option in 1918 (in very, very different terms). They would say: we're all Germans, the Eastern-bound destiny of Austria (with multi-nationalism) has disappeared with the monarchy, the Germans have gone past their Prussian/Protestant domination, and we are now (a relative now) both democratic republics.

But Hitler at least cared little about nationality, and more about race. Whether you come from Austria, Norway, Britain or France - as long as you approximate an "Aryan", you were good.
Not really. He cared a lot.
Even his racism (fully developped only during WW2) was a scale-system. The Germans (Austrians included) were on top, closely followed by Anglo-Saxons etc. The Gypsies were Aryan according to him, but were nonetheless to be exterminated as "degenaretes". And don't forget that he made obvious "exceptions": Croats, some Serbs, Hungarians, Japanese ("honorary Aryans"), Finns, Estonians, Arabs, some Russians, Turks, Turkmen, Georgians etc. etc. - all "not Aryan" in his book, but all with merits.
In fact, Hitler's fascism is distinguished from other fascist approaches by being called "Volkisch" (for example: as opposed to the emphasis on state with Mussolini's theory - manifestly non-ethnical and spectacularly pro-Jewish integration* before the Nazis made them apply the racial laws).

It's good that you're back.
_________
* in 1930s Hungary, Jews would protect themselves from anti-semitical rage by sending their kids to Italian schools in Budapest - Jewish kids would dress in their youth fascist uniforms, and they could claim protection from the Italian state. Spectacular!

Oh yeah, who abolished the Holy Roman empire, the predeceesor to Germany. My word, it was Napoleon. Was he French?

Nope. He was Corsican :p

I suppose the space monkeys started it?

Austria-Hungary Empire actually. It was following the Russian Buildup did Germany Declare War on Russia.

WW1 taught us that monarchy can never be trusted again. Millions died in terrible conditions for no reason at all really.
Despite its popularity as a 'theory', that isnt actually true. They died because of the dismantlement of the Concert of Vienna upon the formation of Germany, a state which was really far too powerful to be allowed in Europe especially so soon after the Napoleonic Wars. They died because 90% of the power in the world was based in Europe, one of the smallest continents in the world (if not the smallest, but if I say that and it's wrong I'll be ripped apart by geography-Nazis <.< >.>), and that power became locally imbalanced..

Definetly, it was a groundbreaking event that shaped the pre-conditions of the even worse WW2

Of course it should be remembered. Any war where so many are killed should always be remembered, regardless of it's participants, causes, or results.

I also wanted to illustrate MY understanding of the cause of WWI, and see if someone more knowledgable than I can elaborate a little, and correct any errors.

1. Archduke Ferdinand Assasinated...Austrian demands rejected by Serbia
2. Austria Declares war on Serbia, Russia declares support for Serbia
3. Germany, fearing Russia, supports Austria
4. Germany, knowing France's alliance with Russia means a two front war, plans to knock out France quickly, allowing them to concentrate on supporting Austria.
5. Germany invades France by moving through Belgium. Britain is pledged to help defend Belgium, and enters the war on the side of France.

Did I miss/mess up anything? :confused:

Does this thread have the record for most lopsided poll result? I'd be willing to bet that it does.

Of course it should be remembered. Any war where so many are killed should always be remembered, regardless of it's participants, causes, or results.

I also wanted to illustrate MY understanding of the cause of WWI, and see if someone more knowledgable than I can elaborate a little, and correct any errors.

1. Archduke Ferdinand Assasinated...Austrian demands rejected by Serbia
2. Austria Declares war on Serbia, Russia declares support for Serbia
3. Germany, fearing Russia, supports Austria
4. Germany, knowing France's alliance with Russia means a two front war, plans to knock out France quickly, allowing them to concentrate on supporting Austria.
5. Germany invades France by moving through Belgium. Britain is pledged to help defend Belgium, and enters the war on the side of France.

Did I miss/mess up anything? :confused:
Slightly. Germany supporting Austria came first, and not because of fear of Russia. Kaiser Bill, being the dimwit he was, gave the Austrians a blank check (in other words: whatever you do, we'll support you, now let me go yachting).
Once the Germans noticed what kind of mess they were in with Austria getting ready to fight over Serbia with Russia, Germany pulled its two front war plans out, which were "walk through Belgium, beat France, beat Russia".

Slightly. Germany supporting Austria came first, and not because of fear of Russia. Kaiser Bill, being the dimwit he was, gave the Austrians a blank check (in other words: whatever you do, we'll support you, now let me go yachting).
Once the Germans noticed what kind of mess they were in with Austria getting ready to fight over Serbia with Russia, Germany pulled its two front war plans out, which were "walk through Belgium, beat France, beat Russia".

Gotcha, thanks. :)

1. Archduke Ferdinand Assasinated...Austrian demands rejected by Serbia
2. Austria Declares war on Serbia, Russia declares support for Serbia
3. Germany, fearing Russia, supports Austria
4. Germany, knowing France's alliance with Russia means a two front war, plans to knock out France quickly, allowing them to concentrate on supporting Austria.
5. Germany invades France by moving through Belgium. Britain is pledged to help defend Belgium, and enters the war on the side of France.

Did I miss/mess up anything? :confused:
Mostly. Well that's pretty much how it started, but not necessarily why it started. It's much more interesting to look at why each state did what it did, and it all goes back to the formation of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War.

Mostly. Well that's pretty much how it started, but not necessarily why it started. It's much more interesting to look at why each state did what it did, and it all goes back to the formation of Germany and the Franco-Prussian War.
Actually that's got little or nothing to do with it. Germany was the great peacemaker for much of its time after 1871.
People seem to think that that war was fought out of some sort of imperialistic thinking. It was merely a political exercise, more or less devised by Bismarck to get the German states together and unite them against a common "enemy", manufactured or not.

Look at Wilhelm II. and Germany's relative position to the other powers (which were pretty much all weaker than Germany was, yet held great empires etc), and you get closer.

Look at the Polish question, the Russia-Japan War and Russian dreams for lost glory, the Balkan War, the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian expansion plans and you'll get much closer than by blaming it on "teh evil Germans"

Look at Wilhelm II. and Germany's relative position to the other powers (which were pretty much all weaker than Germany was, yet held great empires etc), and you get closer.
Actually, if you look at the history of WWI economically speaking, there were only two economies that did not collapse: The United Kingdom and USA. Without an economy in war time, you're busted, but it is true that most of Germany's neighbors were weak militarily speaking.

Anyhow, the insuing economic collaspes lead to: Communism, Facism, and France really sucking in the face of them. Another reason why WWI should be remembered: The birth of USSR. Dunno if that's been mentioned yet.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Slouch_WWI10.html

The info is somewhere muddled in here, it was such a long time ago that I wrote something with this info.

Actually that's got little or nothing to do with it. Germany was the great peacemaker for much of its time after 1871.
People seem to think that that war was fought out of some sort of imperialistic thinking. It was merely a political exercise, more or less devised by Bismarck to get the German states together and unite them against a common "enemy", manufactured or not.

Look at Wilhelm II. and Germany's relative position to the other powers (which were pretty much all weaker than Germany was, yet held great empires etc), and you get closer.

Look at the Polish question, the Russia-Japan War and Russian dreams for lost glory, the Balkan War, the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian expansion plans and you'll get much closer than by blaming it on "teh evil Germans"
The point isnt that Germany went around killing people and invading stuff and being mean, nasty imperialists (which I agree, in Europe is not true), but it has everything to do with the fact that the formation of Germany dismantled the Concert of Vienna and ended the Pax Britannica. Before Germany was formed, France was fairly powerful on land, but incompetently led and opposed by many powerful states - Prussia, Austria, Italian Kingdoms etc. Britain controlled the sea-lanes but had no real land based presence on the continent.

The problem with Germany was that it became far too powerful. Much more powerful than France, more powerful than Russia and in the event ended up holding off the combined forces of the British Empire, the French Republic and Tsarist Russia at the same time whilst destabilising Russia to the point of revolution (remember that the Tsars had resisted revolution before) and causing the French army to mutiny and refuse to advance. In addition, their navy performed favourably against the much larger Grand Fleet, even when brought to battle against its will.

Germany really shouldnt have been allowed to form, because it was an unbalancing and destabilising factor led eventually by a nutter (have you ever read any of Wilhelm's speeches?) and the actions of his state, as well as the actions of surrounding states caused by the existance of his state, led to WWI. I'm not saying it's their fault - I'm just saying that their formation was the indirect cause of WWI, even if there was no way of knowing what would happen when Germany was formed.

Actually, if you look at the history of WWI economically speaking, there were only two economies that did not collapse: The United Kingdom and USA. Without an economy in war time, you're busted, but it is true that most of Germany's neighbors were weak militarily speaking.
But just as a qualification, Germany's collapse is pretty much entirely attributable to the blockade.

But just as a qualification, Germany's collapse is pretty much entirely attributable to the blockade.
But it was total war, everything was game. If war was ever played fairly, not only would it be war, every conlfict in recent history would have a different outcome.

@Praetonia: Congress of Vienna, I believe you're talking about. While I am sure there have been many concerts in Vienna as well. :p

Nope, nor was Hitler German.

Napoleon was Corsican, which, given it is a French domain, would imply he is French

But it was total war, everything was game.
Sink that st00pid Lusitania! Burn, Pillage, Kill!!! :D

Sink that st00pid Lusitania! Burn, Pillage, Kill!!! :D
Threaten our stock market! Ask Mexico to take back what we took from them! DEATH TO THE GERMANS! DEATH! RAWR!

But really, no hard feelings. :fluffle:

But it was total war, everything was game. If war was ever played fairly, not only would it be war, every conlfict in recent history would have a different outcome.

@Praetonia: Congress of Vienna, I believe you're talking about. While I am sure there have been many concerts in Vienna as well. :p
k. I was thinking of the Concert of Europe actually - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe - which is similar but different, rather than an orchestral performance.

You have to remember that World War I was originally supposed to be the war to end all wars. It was the Great War. It took millions and millions of lives. It should be remembered for that reason alone. But in addition, we saw the popular use of tanks, submarines, and aircraft.

Should we remember WWI? I know that alot of people think of WWII as a fight against Nazism and Freedom (including myself).

World War II was indeed a fight against freedom. It was a total waste. George Patton summed it up quite well: "What the tin soldier politicians in Washington and Paris have managed to do today is another story you'll be writing for a long while if you live. They have allowed us to kick the hell out of one bastard and at the same time forced us to help establish a second one as evil or more evil than the first." After liberating so much of Europe, communist traitor Roosevelt immediately turned around and handed it to Stalin (arguably no less evil than Hitler) on a silver platter.

all of these post have been interesting to read. for my comment, I'm going to step back...

the world (politically/economically) that existed prior to the first world war died as a result of that conflict. the interm world (~1920-1930) was unstable and allowed conditions to exist which resulted in a renewed conflict. This conflict (the second world war) continued for a long time - even after most of the global shooting was finished. korea, and argueably the ROC/PRC, are remenents of that conflict. the collapse of the soviet union ("cold war") is probably close to the true end of the conflict. the world, today, would baffle the political/military analysts of a hundred years ago.

so...

yes, we should remember WW1 as part of this long conflict and change.

the kasier did not start WW1. he only alllowed it to occur. granted his long winded sabre rattling certainly wasn't helpful in defusing the situation. bill wanted clout - similar to that of the UK. the high seas fleet was one way to achieve this (noteably, italy tried the same thing after...the italian navy of the second war was large and formidable - although, utilimately ineffective). I doubt that the kasier actually wanted to engage the royal navy. it was more about the threat.

regardless of the bravery of the sailors or tonnage sunk, the high seas fleet failed in its primary mission: to prevent the blocade of germany.

in europe and on the ground, germany did better. the two front plan was a partial success. it held the allies in france and defeated the russians. without the later involvement of the united states, it may have actaully succeeded in france, as well. certaintly, there would have been an peace favourable to germany. what happened, though, was collapse of imperial germany - mostly by ecomonic means and attrition. the army was not defeated in the field.

after the peace, conflict continued. notably the russian civil war in which allied troops fought to support the "whites". they would eventually be withdrawn and the "whites" defeated thus securing the soviet union. the soviet union is important to the causes of the second world war.

in the interm instability, the COMINTERN (led by the stalinist soviet union) actively tried to underpin the fragile democratic states which emerged after the first world war. one of fascism's political tenents was to fight international communism. the rise of the totalitarian national states resulted in the dissolution of the COMINTERN.

effectively, there is little actual difference between stalinism and fascism. at the dawn of the second world war, there existed the possibility of an alliance between nazi-germany and stalinist-russia. we had a taste of this in the partition of poland (moltov/ribbentrop). had this instead been a dedicated "alliance of evil" things would have been quite different.

instead, a political decision was made to destroy one while supporting the other. the total defeat of both would have been excessively difficult. hitler was crushed (with the brunt of the fighting borne by the red army) and the soviet union was allowed to continue.

patton (and others) knew that conflict with the soviet union after the defeat of germany was inevitable. he, though, didn't understand what form that would take. as the age of atomics had now begun, the form of military conflict would change. the world would teeter on the rim of massive atomic rain for decades - until the economic collapse of the soviet union in the 90s.

we should remember the first world war because it allows us to understand the transitions that occured over the last century. prior to it, britian was an ecomonic powerhouse. after, its empire was almost bankrupt and political pressures forced the release of the dominions (most around 1935) and many of the colonies. the (former empire now called the) commonwealth would take another beating in the second world war. the EU, itself, is a result of these conflicts and economic reality. one hundred years ago, no one would have accepted a voluntary EU - it was to be united by force if at all.

Sure we should remember WW1.

Just in general terms, it is better to have knowledge of something than not to do so.

In more specific terms, if we do not remember the mistakes of the past, we will be destined to repeat them.

We should remember that the US population was pacifist and isolationist and Woodrow Wilson ran on a promise to keep the US out of that war.
Then he broke the promise and started a massive propaganda campaign claiming Germans were throwing babies out of incubators(oops that was a lie about Iraq 1991) claimed Germans were killing babies with bayonets.


Also, the US deported recent immigrants for opposing US involvement and
simply because of their politics. Such as anarchist Emma Goldman.
Many citizens who opposed US involvement were thrown in jail.
Eugene Debs ran for president as a socialist and got
2 million votes while in prison.



also if i'm not mistaken, there are still on the books laws from this
era that were made just to go after opponents of US involvement.
"alien & sedition acts" I believe.

k. I was thinking of the Concert of Europe actually - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe - which is similar but different, rather than an orchestral performance.
Never heard of this! But it seems to be about broad cooperation between monarchies in Europe, no? The Wiki thing has some gibberish where a useful word would be. Nevertheless, it seems to be an extension of the Congress of Vienna, and the containment of the "evil" anti-monarchist revolutionaries.