NationStates Jolt Archive

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

Gavrilo Princip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo) did... and the treaty of Versaille ended it.

Austria-Hungary.

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

All european "great powers"...germany, france, great britain in union with the lesser powers austria-hungaria and russia...all through their eagerness, stubborn diplomacy and each with their own goals in mind and a blatant disregard for the development of modern warfare.

Gavrilo Princip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_in_Sarajevo) did... and the treaty of Versaille ended it.

That was one of the triggers, but Austria-Hungary were the first to declare war I thought?

long answer: a series of ill-conceived treaties that basically meant that any time any two countries in europe went to war, everybody'd have to. it was thought that the threat of war of this scale would keep anybody from going to war, since obviously nobody wanted war of that scale. what happened instead, of course, we all know. you'd have to read hundreds of pages to keep track of the specifics of the treaties and the convoluted history leading up to them, and i'm unwilling to write that much, so you'll have to try a local library.

short answer: some serb nationalist assasinated the obscure austrian archduke, franz ferdinand. he'd gotten away from the assassination attempt during his procession through the city, but the assassin later found him in the matinee, the dark of the matinee.

That was one of the triggers, but Austria-Hungary were the first to declare war I thought?

Austria-Hungary blamed the government of Serbia for the assassination and issued an unrealistic ultimatum, which was known as the July Ultimatum. Austria-Hungary insisted that Serbia had to accept all of the conditions. To the surprise of most of Europe, Serbia accepted most of the ultimatum but one point. Austria-Hungary then declared war on July 28, 1914. It was the immediate cause of World War I.

They did. That alone wouldn't have led to a world war, though. Germany's lunatic diplomacy was to blame, having formed an alliance with Austria-Hungary, that forced them to fight alongside with them against alomst all of the rest of the world...

a serbian civilian officially started it by killing the duke of austria, but there was alot of tension. it really wasnt only because of that one act

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

i wasn't expecting ten responses before i got the poll up...

geez.

It was obviously the Lizardmen, in collaboration with Lenin, who took the opportunity to take over Russia. However, Hitler intercepted the communications between Lenin and the Lizardmen mothership, orbiting around the planet in a satillite we call, "the moon." And thus, the beginings of the great showdown that was to become WWII began, with Hilter trying to protect the people of Europe, and eliminating any Lizardmen conspiratiors, who had sense come under the mindcontrol of the socialist Lizardmen, who also happened to have created life as we know in their laboratories.

Oh, God, this is a poll. When that'd happen, while I was writing this? Anyhow, I MUST VOTE!

i wasn't expecting ten responses before i got the poll up...

geez.

hey, WWI is a fun subject

Serbia started it.

Serbia started it.

... and New Zealand singlehandedly won it, right? :D :p

Well, WW1 was "the war everyone wanted". Every nation had internal struggles to fight with, and as we all know, internal struggles are best dealt with by starting to fight with someone abroad.

To make matters worse, most nations were convinced that they had the upper hand when (not if, when) war breaks out and that the enemy is soon going to be squished.

And to finally top it off, a system of alliances had spread across Europe. A lot of different secret or blatantly official treaties span across the map. What it boiled down to (as the events told) was that it's Austria-Hungary and Germany against France, England and Russia.

And Italy, who, as usual, switched sides.

The final straw (or the match to that barrel of powder) was the assassination of the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo. To this, Austria-Hungary reacted with a VERY harsh and VERY demanding ultimatum to Serbia, which they actually wanted to accept in its main parts, which wasn't enough for Austria-Hungary (hey, when we want war you can't simply go ahead and spoil it by fulfilling our demands!).

So Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Which set the web of treaties into action. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany... and so on.

hey, WWI is a fun subject
With conspiracy theories, and Lizardmen.

THE STARTING OF WWI IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY EARTHLY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES. Well...almost true.

They did. That alone wouldn't have led to a world war, though. Germany's lunatic diplomacy was to blame, having formed an alliance with Austria-Hungary, that forced them to fight alongside with them against alomst all of the rest of the world...
Hey we were handicapped by having Italy on our side.:p

... and New Zealand singlehandedly won it, right? :D :p


did they ??? I ever thought it was WW II....:sniper:

Hey we were handicapped by having Italy on our side.:p
Ever since that whole Rome thing, they really haven't been much up to par in military and power terms...and if it wasn't for Italy in WWII, diffusing German manpower, it would have been a lot harder. :p

WOOT! Ethiopia! WOOT!

Hey we were handicapped by having Italy on our side.:p

Only for about a year or so... but we did have the Turks. Hard to tell who's worse ;)

To those who picked Serbia:
People, Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb in Austro-Hungarian territory! It's like saying Austria started WW2 because Hitler was Austrian.
And it wasn't even the assasination thing. Serbia would not allow Austria to carry a enquiry into Serb territory, to see Princip's Serbian connections (Serbian, but not necessarily Serbian gvt. connections). Notice this: no country ever would agree to such a thing, as it is a forfeit of sovereignty.

and we sell tanks at the turks " voll krass ey"...:p

short answer: some serb nationalist assasinated the obscure austrian archduke, franz ferdinand. he'd gotten away from the assassination attempt during his procession through the city, but the assassin later found him in the matinee, the dark of the matinee.

I'd hardly call Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and heir to the throne obscure!!

Just to be awkward the assasin, Gavrilo Princip was Bosnian Serb not just a Serb:sniper:

it is obvious W started the war. he is responsible for all evil

To those who picked Serbia:
People, Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb in Austro-Hungarian territory! It's like saying Austria started WW2 because Hitler was Austrian.
And it wasn't even the assasination thing. Serbia would not allow Austria to carry a enquiry into Serb territory, to see Princip's Serbian connections (Serbian, but not necessarily Serbian gvt. connections). Notice this: no country ever would agree to such a thing, as it is a forfeit of sovereignty.

I can't think of any similar event in modern history and how the investigation would have been handled, so I'll have to go for an imaginary situation:
Imagine the US president getting shot in Berlin in 1982. Do you think the US would have let Germany even take part in the investigation?

To those who picked Serbia:
People, Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb in Austro-Hungarian territory! It's like saying Austria started WW2 because Hitler was Austrian.
And it wasn't even the assasination thing. Serbia would not allow Austria to carry a enquiry into Serb territory, to see Princip's Serbian connections (Serbian, but not necessarily Serbian gvt. connections). Notice this: no country ever would agree to such a thing, as it is a forfeit of sovereignty.

but, there are several serious historians who believe that princep was acting under the orders of the serbian monarch....this is, historically, a rather shady point.

if the serbian government really did authorize the assassanation, then we can blame serbia. if it was the result of "rogue" elements, then we must blame austria.

but wait. had russia not declared war, serbia would have been crushed, but that would have been the end of hostilities - discounting an inevitable guerrilla war. so, the war itself is the fault of austria or serbia, but the world war is russia's fault.

but, it was germany that truly escalated the war by bringing in turkey and france. so, we should blame the germans.

but, had belgium been more militarized....

Actually, long term tensions in the Batlic between Muslims, Othodox Christians, Catholics, and imperial powers (Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Russia) were the cause of the conflict. The people of the Baltic wanted indepedence in general, but they also had long lasting distrust of eachother due to years of imperialism under conflicting foreign powers. Austria-Hungary just had to be the bully. And Germany's blank check...ugh. And then France comes in, for some reason they're allied with Russia, and then Germany romps through Belgium and the Netherlands...everyone is to blame for WWI. But, however, it was the war everyone wanted.

And if you need a short, easily digested reason, I'd blame it on Austria-Hungary. Germany was merely helping a friend in a war they believed to be, at first, centralized in the Baltic, far from home.

And as to competent Axis powers, in WWI, who was competent other than Germany? Russia whomped on both Austria and Turky (they gained ground) until the Red Revolution, after getting pawned themselves by the Japs. And then the Austrians and the Italians were at a stalemate in the Alps.

Imagine the US president getting shot in Berlin in 1982. Do you think the US would have let Germany even take part in the investigation?
Well, which side of Germany/Berlin? And it might not have even been a W. German citizen, it be assumable that the Ruskies did it.

Actually, long term tensions in the Batlic between Muslims, Othodox Christians, Catholics, and imperial powers (Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Russia) were the cause of the conflict. The people of the Baltic

heh.

I can't think of any similar event in modern history and how the investigation would have been handled, so I'll have to go for an imaginary situation:
Imagine the US president getting shot in Berlin in 1982. Do you think the US would have let Germany even take part in the investigation?
Except for three very important things:
- Franz-Ferdinand was not in any office (he was heir, which is not office in itself) = not President
- the assasination happened deep in Austrian territory = not Berlin
- the plotters were not Serb, they were Austrian citizens = not German

Austria was gently rubbed by Germany to go and prove the Serbians that they don't take crap from some shit country. Except that Serbia proved a formidable foe in itself, and that it was in an alliance with Russia. The Germans wished they could test the Russian-Serb alliance, and they did. Not one single country is at fault.

heh.
Still? What? Even then?

That was what I gleaned from the textbooks and sources I dug up for a WWI presentation to my American history class. I just had to care about the European aspect of it.

Well, which side of Germany/Berlin? And it might not have even been a W. German citizen, it be assumable that the Ruskies did it.

West. Let's say in the British sector. And let's say it was a W. German citizen, a member of the RAF.

-snip-
We agree.

Still? What? Even then?

That was what I gleaned from the textbooks and sources I dug up for a WWI presentation to my American history class. I just had to care about the European aspect of it.

i really think you mean balkan and not baltic, that's all. figured you get the joke.

Except for three very important things:
- Franz-Ferdinand was not in any office (he was heir, which is not office in itself) = not President
- the assasination happened deep in Austrian territory = not Berlin
- the plotters were not Serb, they were Austrian citizens = not German

Austria was gently rubbed by Germany to go and prove the Serbians that they don't take crap from some shit country. Except that Serbia proved a formidable foe in itself, and that it was in an alliance with Russia. The Germans wished they could test the Russian-Serb alliance, and they did. Not one single country is at fault.

He was the Archduke, and therefore while not the ruler of the country, he was still a highly important political figure. I can't imagine any office of similar importance nowadays.

Serbia was an independent nation, otherwise there would have been no point in declaring war, would there?

The plotters were Serbian citizens.

And I do agree that no one single country is at fault.

and then Germany romps through Belgium and the Netherlands


Uh. that Germany romping through Belgium and the Netherlands, limit it to Belgium. At least in WW1.

Still? What? Even then?

That was what I gleaned from the textbooks and sources I dug up for a WWI presentation to my American history class. I just had to care about the European aspect of it.
First of all:
-it's the Balkans, not the Baltics (no Muslims to speak of in the Baltics)
Second of all:
-your given reason is murky at best. The Muslims had no part to play in the Balkans, and all religios division is pointless. To stick to the Balkans: you have countries of the same faith in different camps, and fighting each other to death (Serbia, Romania, Greece vs. Bulgaria and a yet another Greek gvt.; the Ottomans sticking with the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant Central Powers).


EDIT: Ponder this. The war resulted in the creation of a multi-confessional Yugoslavia.

2ND EDIT: One of the "Black Hand" plotters was named Muhamed Mehmedbasic...

West. Let's say in the British sector. And let's say it was a W. German citizen, a member of the RAF.
RAF -Royal Air Force, British, right?

Interesting, testing the long-term Anglo-Saxon alliance? Hmm...back in 1982...the German's might be allowed to cooperate in this case, seeing as to the Berlin Airlift, and other favors the US did. However, the US might deem them too incompetent. And I would hope that the US allowed Britain to do something in coordination with them, doubtless there would be investigations on both sides, but assuming that the RAF member was pushed to assassinate the president by order of the PM, no. However, I read somewhere that Soviet KGB had used the UK as a staging ground for anti-West espionage, so possibly not. But as far as independent US investigaters being allowed to do work and such in the country? No, I would expect a NATO or UN investigation. And Cold War tensions set at an even higher all-time high, and a new dimension added to it. The US would doubtlessly take that as an insult from GB, in which we might acutally care about France for once.

Alternative World History. Tried. :p

Yes, I mean the Balkans, its just that I'm living in the Baltic right now, getting a little confused and disoriented. My reason is murky at best because in the time of WWI the chroniclers of history think that imperial powers have all the say and influence, and give no credit to the people living in any region under thier domination. Any war-time alliance is for personal gain, and not for any long-term friendship ties. Years before, Germany was at war with Austria, and Turky had also been at war with Austria. Just because a sheet of paper says that people are "allied" does not mean there are tensions running between them.

Bulgaria still has Muslims in it, and Turkey was ruled the region. Kosovo? Bosnia? Relgious tension, in the 20th century, due to the same reasons here. History repeats itself.

Oh, and since I'm living in the Baltics, there are enough Muslims here to encourage some kind of witch-hunt, should anything happen, but certainly not a World War. :p

EDIT:I assumed that the Netherlands was familiar territory in WWII for the Reich. My bad. I focus mainly on the Eastern front, more interesting than trench warfare.

RAF -Royal Air Force, British, right?

Interesting, testing the long-term Anglo-Saxon alliance? Hmm...back in 1982...the German's might be allowed to cooperate in this case, seeing as to the Berlin Airlift, and other favors the US did. However, the US might deem them too incompetent. And I would hope that the US allowed Britain to do something in coordination with them, doubtless there would be investigations on both sides, but assuming that the RAF member was pushed to assassinate the president by order of the PM, no. However, I read somewhere that Soviet KGB had used the UK as a staging ground for anti-West espionage, so possibly not. But as far as independent US investigaters being allowed to do work and such in the country? No, I would expect a NATO or UN investigation. And Cold War tensions set at an even higher all-time high, and a new dimension added to it. The US would doubtlessly take that as an insult from GB, in which we might acutally care about France for once.

Alternative World History. Tried. :p
:p

RAF = Rote Armee Fraktion, a leftist-anarchist terrorist organisation that existed in Germany at the time.

True, the US might have used the NATO rather than investigating themselves, but I severly doubt that they would have paid the least attention to Germany's sovereignity at all. They would have behaved in a very similar way as Austria-Hungary did, in my opinion.

While it is an international affront to disrespect another nations sovereignity in that way, it is also very clear that international law is little more than guidelines these days and had even less value back then, with no international organisation like the UN yet in place.

Bulgaria still has Muslims in it, and Turkey was ruled the region. Kosovo? Bosnia? Relgious tension, in the 20th century, due to the same reasons here. History repeats itself.

Oh, and since I'm living in the Baltics, there are enough Muslims here to encourage some kind of witch-hunt, should anything happen, but certainly not a World War. :p
You're being absurd. Turkey has ruled all the regions from Crete to Ruthenia at some point.
The fact that Bulgaria has many Muslims is irrelevant. Serbia had roughly the same number, and so did Greece in the north. If religious tension was the key, then where the hell was Albania in WW1? Add to this: Bulgarian Muslims had no say in the policies of Bulgaria; Bulgaria and Serbia had been independent from roughly the same time.
Note this: nationalisms in those years and, in many cases, a long time after where trans-confessional. Albanians (Christians and Muslim) opposed Kosovo rule by the Serbians; Yugoslavia itself engendered a new South-Slavic nationalism for most of its history.

"enough Muslims here to encourage some kind of witch-hunt" - as if Muslim presence encounters witch-hunts everywhere it settles... And what? The Lithuanian Tatars? They're like 0.00000000000000001 % of a very small population.

He was the Archduke, and therefore while not the ruler of the country, he was still a highly important political figure. I can't imagine any office of similar importance nowadays.

Serbia was an independent nation, otherwise there would have been no point in declaring war, would there?

The plotters were Serbian citizens.

And I do agree that no one single country is at fault.

The assasination happened in Sarajevo, right? Austro-Hungarian territory since 1878.
Some of the plotters were, some were not. It is highly unlikely that the Serbian gvt. was behind it - it had just signed traties with Austria, and knew that it couldn't handle provoking a war (if they were to provoke one, and not just stumbled on one, Russia would not have offered them support). Some Serbian nationalists acted against their gvt.'s policy, and took a gamble.

- the assasination happened deep in Austrian territory = not Berlin.
Some people might dispute that Sarajewo* was a particularly Austrian town...didn't we have a Serbian poster here ("Serbijanac" or something - always used CAPITALS?)

I got into a heated argument with him once because I dared to say that Russia had a history of using the Serbs to further their own interest. Ended up in a violent tirade against Austrian imperialism...

*EDIT: 200 whips for me. It was indeed Sarajewo, not Belgrade. The rest of the point stands though.

Only for about a year or so... but we did have the Turks. Hard to tell who's worse ;)
The Turks fought well.
We were just better in the dessert

All Fear the ANZAC mounted Corp!

Some people might dispute that Sarajewo* was a particularly Austrian town...didn't we have a Serbian poster here ("Serbijanac" or something - always used CAPITALS?)

I got into a heated argument with him once because I dared to say that Russia had a history of using the Serbs to further their own interest. Ended up in a violent tirade against Austrian imperialism...

*EDIT: 200 whips for me. It was indeed Sarajewo, not Belgrade. The rest of the point stands though.
You're right. However, if Serbs were Russian puppets, it is a fact that Russia did not want the war then and there. Germany provoked Russia by urging the Austrians to carry their said enquiry, but they did so as another step in the long tradition of "let's see how far they'll go". Your country too did not want to see it unfold.
Sure, when the war started everyone was "willing and ready". But what else could they do? The propaganda machine had begun its activities, and it was the point of no return (just the next month or so).
The avatars of nationalism in the Balkans (my country included) are complex and bewildering. At that point, nationalism was very inclusive in a sense. See my point about the assasination plotter named Muhamed Mehmedbasic, and then consider that, in 1995, a proper Serb in Bosnia was supposed to destroy Muslims like lice.

You're being absurd. Turkey has ruled all the regions from Crete to Ruthenia at some point.
Ruthenia is a very broad term.
The fact that Bulgaria has many Muslims is irrelevant. Serbia had roughly the same number, and so did Greece in the north. If religious tension was the key, then where the hell was Albania in WW1? Add to this: Bulgarian Muslims had no say in the policies of Bulgaria; Bulgaria and Serbia had been independent from roughly the same time.
To those in the conflict, religion mattered. Russia and Serbia were both Orthodox. Austria-Hungary was predominantly Catholic. And, all of a sudden, in the 1990's, people start killing eachother in the Balkans. Religious tension has to come from somewhere. Here, it is before WWI.
Note this: nationalisms in those years and, in many cases, a long time after where trans-confessional. Albanians (Christians and Muslim) opposed Kosovo rule by the Serbians; Yugoslavia itself engendered a new South-Slavic nationalism for most of its history.
There were bigger fish to fry at the time.
"enough Muslims here to encourage some kind of witch-hunt" - as if Muslim presence encounters witch-hunts everywhere it settles... And what? The Lithuanian Tatars? They're like 0.00000000000000001 % of a very small population.
I was merely joking, lighten up. Muslim presence does not equate to witch-hunts, we all know this. I am done here.

The assasination happened in Sarajevo, right? Austro-Hungarian territory since 1878.
Some of the plotters were, some were not. It is highly unlikely that the Serbian gvt. was behind it - it had just signed traties with Austria, and knew that it couldn't handle provoking a war (if they were to provoke one, and not just stumbled on one, Russia would not have offered them support). Some Serbian nationalists acted against their gvt.'s policy, and took a gamble.

....but what if those nationalists were within the serbian government?

it's too shady to really say either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ottoman_1683.png

Ruthenia is a very broad term.

I know where their borders were. I was refering strictly to their dominion in what co be called the Balkans. My point was that they ruled most of them for long, and many of them for some time. In this instance: Ruthenia=The Subcarpathic Ukraine.

To those in the conflict, religion mattered. Russia and Serbia were both Orthodox. Austria-Hungary was predominantly Catholic. And, all of a sudden, in the 1990's, people start killing eachother in the Balkans. Religious tension has to come from somewhere. Here, it is before WWI.

Bulgaria is and was majority Orthodox and it fought on Germany's side! The then last stage of internal Balkan conflict was done in 1913, in two succeding wars.

The nations were spoiling for a war, and then they got it. If there hadn't been such a deep rivalry between the European Powers, that war could have been averted.

....but what if those nationalists were within the serbian government?

it's too shady to really say either way.
My point was that it was very convenient for Austria to imply as much. Wether they were (and I don't think that it's plausible they were) it shouldn't matter much: Austria asked the unaskable, and only because they saw their chance for quieting Serbia and embarrassing the Russian gvt.
Russia could have ignored the provocation, but they noticed that Germany was pulling the strings. So, they got paranoid that Germany was meaning war - and that Germany was ready to fight, which they weren't. Even with preparation, they took the longest (out of any country involved) in just calling the troops to their stations, never mind instructing them further.

Damn Trade Wars!
Why else do you think Germany had all its over seas possesions taken off her after the War?

Damn Trade Wars!
Why else do you think Germany had all its over seas possesions taken off her after the War?Cuz the South Africans (rather independent at that time already) wanted Namibia. So the British and French thought "Oh, why not all of them?"

Cuz the South Africans (rather independent at that time already) wanted Namibia. So the British and French thought "Oh, why not all of them?"
Yeah and we got Samoa.'
Japan kept Gungzhoa(or what ever it was)
America got American Samoa and some islands below Midway and North East of the Solomons.-I think a Naval battle was fought near their in WWII.

Yeah and we got Samoa.'
Japan kept Gungzhoa(or what ever it was)
America got American Samoa and some islands below Midway and North East of the Solomons.-I think a Naval battle was fought near their in WWII.I know. I was working on a global WWI map for Rise of Nations before my computer died.

Yeah and we got Samoa.'
Japan kept Gungzhoa(or what ever it was)
America got American Samoa and some islands below Midway and North East of the Solomons.-I think a Naval battle was fought near their in WWII.
You forgot Tanganyka, Zanzibar, Togo and Papua. Wait, not Zanzibar - sorry.

Japan kept Gungzhoa(or what ever it was)
They call it Qingdao now (we used to make it "Tsingtao" - silly Germaniacs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao_Brewery

They call it Qingdao now (we used to make it "Tsingtao" - silly Germaniacs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao_BreweryAnd Kiaoutschou...

I know. I was working on a global WWI map for Rise of Nations before my computer died.
Cool.

You forgot Tanganyka, Zanzibar, Togo and Papua. Wait, not Zanzibar - sorry.
Zanzibar is Madagascar right???
Which is where the Jews were going to be put if Rommel had taken Alexandria and Cairo.

They call it Qingdao now (we used to make it "Tsingtao" - silly Germaniacs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao_Brewery
Thank you.

What happened to you anyways???

Zanzibar is Madagascar right???
No. It's part of Tanzania.
Madagascar was never a German colony. Zanzibar was, for a while, a kind of Brithish-German protectorate. The Germans renounced it for Heligoland.
That thing with Jewish deportation was "feasable" only because, after France's fall in 1940, the Germans thought they could boss French colonies about.

No. It's part of Tanzania.
Madagascar was never a German colony. Zanzibar was, for a while, a kind of Brithish-German protectorate. The Germans renounced it for Heligoland.
That thing with Jewish deportation was "feasable" only because, after France's fall in 1940, the Germans thought they could boss French colonies about.
Tanzania dosent help me much.
Africa is aways chaning its nations names.
There are 2 Congos!
I cant even find Rhodesia on the map anymore.

Tanzania dosent help me much.

it's towards the east. i think.

I cant even find Rhodesia on the map anymore.

how old are you? it's been zimbabwe for, like, 50 years.

it's towards the east. i think.



how old are you? it's been zimbabwe for, like, 50 years.
LOL i am just messing with you.
Next youll be telling me Salisbury has been renamed and Ina Smith isnt in charge anymore.

http://tinypic.com/e9zo9l

Obviously Malta and Brazil, split 50/50.

RAF = Rote Armee Fraktion, a leftist-anarchist terrorist organisation that existed in Germany at the time. -snippy, snippy-
Yeah, had no idea what RAF was. A German political party crossed my mind, but, I didn't feel like digging. And I agree with you, on this topic.

@the macrocosmos: No, I didn't get the joke right away. You kinda had to help me out, but if makes up for it, I did have this wierd feeling in my belly if I was using the term "Baltic" correctly. I was preoccupied with doing my trigonomity, when I should have been thinking about the post, and thinking about my post, when I should have been doing trig. I'm so conflicted! :p

Bulgaria is and was majority Orthodox and it fought on Germany's side! The then last stage of internal Balkan conflict was done in 1913, in two succeding wars.

i'm just adding that the romanian is right. bulgaria fought on germany's side primarily because it feared russian domination and because it wanted a piece of the western balkans, which it has some historical claim to going back to the time of simeon. bulgaria was the first slavic-speaking empire, a synthesis of hunnic-slavic peoples under a byzantine social model, and serbia was for many years situated within it's borders. yet, both russia and serbia are, as mentioned, orthodox, just like bulgaria whereas germany is primarily protestant (and where not protestant, catholic) and austria is blatantly catholic; furthermore, that bulgaria fought on germany's side means it also fought on turkey's side and we all know that turkey is muslim. furthermore, turkey was bulgaria's old centuries-long imperial tax-collector! using an ethnic or religious basis to explain bulgaria's side in the war makes no sense; using these criteria, bulgaria would have almost certainly sided with russia and serbia.

bulgaria has always had pretensions to be a major power, like the hapsburg or romanov empires were, and was seeking out it's desire for empire at the expense of it's neighbours; nothing more, nothing less. as pointed out earlier, the balkans are way too complicated to split up into alliances based on ethnicity and religion; the result would be numerous isolated nations, none of which would align with any of the others.

albanian - muslim, albanian-speaking [albanian is an indo-european language isolate of unknown relation to the other daughter groups], of uncertain ancestry [probably illyrian, or ancient macedonian [pelasgian]].
serbian - orthodox, slavic-speaking, iranian ancestry.
croatian - orthodox, serbian-speaking, claims to roman ancestry [probably false].
bulgarian - orthodox, slavic-speaking, turkic/hunnic ancestry.
romanian - orthodox, romance-speaking, italo-greek ancestry.
bosnian - muslim, slavic-speaking, serbian ancestry.
macedonian - orthodox, slavic-speaking, mixed slavic-greek ancestry.
greek - orthodox, greek-speaking, mixed slavic-greek ancestry
etc, etc, etc...

ethnicity played a large role in the way the spoils were split, although this was perhaps done a little hastily and slightly ignorantly [kurds should have gotten their own state, etc], but it played next to no part in how the major powers chose their sides.

Yeah, had no idea what RAF was. A German political party crossed my mind, but, I didn't feel like digging. And I agree with you, on this topic.

@the macrocosmos: No, I didn't get the joke right away. You kinda had to help me out, but if makes up for it, I did have this wierd feeling in my belly if I was using the term "Baltic" correctly. I was preoccupied with doing my trigonomity, when I should have been thinking about the post, and thinking about my post, when I should have been doing trig. I'm so conflicted! :p

i should be doing fourier analysis....but fourier anaylsis is easy.

maybe it's obvious that i'm also in the middle of writing an essay on byzantine military history.

-snip-

*the Romanian takes a bow*

There are such things in your post which need a little nuancing* (in my opinion), but the overall analysis is right.
Your last phrase is a very good summary.





*"Italo-Greek ancestry" for Romanians? Why Italic? Why Greek? Why ancestry? And Iranian ancestry for Serbs?

Only for about a year or so... but we did have the Turks. Hard to tell who's worse ;)

Not so. The Turks fought hard & were an honourable oponent.

Engraved forever at ANZAC Cove are these words from Kemal Ataturk, the Commander of the Turkish 19th Division during the Gallipoli Campaign and the first President of the Turkish Republic from 1924-1938:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives. You are now living in the soil of a friendly country therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.


There is great respect & friendship between Turkey & Australia today.

Why am I the only one to play the Imperial power-balancing games and the longstanding and deeprunning treachery of the British manipulators on this? :confused:

Why am I the only one to play the Imperial power-balancing games and the longstanding and deeprunning treachery of the British manipulators on this? :confused:
Wha?

*"Italo-Greek ancestry" for Romanians? Why Italic? Why Greek? Why ancestry?

well, you speak an italic language, but you're probably the result of byzantines fleeing slav incursions.

it's hard to explain how you ended up north of the danube. the danube was generally the boundary of the empire, and that was at it's strong points; it was only for a short period of time that the roman empire extended into dacia and it wasn' for a millenia afterwards that the area was reconquered.

as there's no known migration date [you just kind of showed up after the dark ages] and the idea that you're descended from the original dacian settlements is rather absurd, that means you're probably roman settlers that migrated from the areas around greece..

....or you're the same as the vlachs in northern greece, right.

acknowledgement: the origin of the romanian people is not fully established and there are a lot of unanswered questions about how you managed to actually get to where you are and maintain your language....but i don't think much of anything makes any sense other than that you migrated from the south, and sometime rather late at that.

:( Why is everybody falling for the old migration theory? This theory was invented in the XIXth century by the Hungarians in an attempt to justify their rule of Transylvania, but in academic circles it is completely discredited. If I remember correctly, Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even mention it. They only present the continuity theory.

And returning to the ancestry, regardless of the migrations, the different populations were not much changed. Even if Slavic tribes entered the Balkans, the Serbians, Croatians and Bulgarians don't look like the Russians and the Poles. They look like the Thracians and Illyrians looked like 2000 years ago.

Wha?

History may be written by the victors, but close examination and putting off the pink lenze that Anglosaxon historians put on the matter reveals a great deal about how the British planned and orchestrated World War One. It just happened a little sooner than the Imperialists in London wanted it to happen due to events in Serbia. The causes, however, are the result of British machinations.

well, you speak an italic language, but you're probably the result of byzantines fleeing slav incursions.

Hm. Constantine probably sent his troops here a century after the Roman retreat. I debate that.

it's hard to explain how you ended up north of the danube. the danube was generally the boundary of the empire, and that was at it's strong points; it was only for a short period of time that the roman empire extended into dacia and it wasn' for a millenia afterwards that the area was reconquered.
as there's no known migration date [you just kind of showed up after the dark ages] and the idea that you're descended from the original dacian settlements is rather absurd, that means you're probably roman settlers that migrated from the areas around greece..

....or you're the same as the vlachs in northern greece, right.
acknowledgement: the origin of the romanian people is not fully established and there are a lot of unanswered questions about how you managed to actually get to where you are and maintain your language....but i don't think much of anything makes any sense other than that you migrated from the south, and sometime rather late at that.

The main idea is that settlers stayed North of the Danube, in spite of the reatreat. Many Romanian nationalists have been beating the drum with this, but it is not altogether true. I agree with you that there was a shift of populations on a north-south axis, probably encouraged by a cohabitation of Bulgarians -Turanic and Slav- with Romance speakers. This would account for Hungarian chronicles saying that the Hungarians met Bulgarian tribe-leaders deep in Transylvania, and that we have South Slavic words in our language. Also, Bulgarians and Romance-speakers formed a polity North and South of the Danube (the first Bulgarian czarate under Peter and Asen). However, what can be said to have been Romance-speakers were enemies of Byzanthines - Ana Comnena goes on about how they marauded in the Balkans against imperial troops. So, there was no Neo-Greek presence in that form, nor is it necessity to assume that the Romance-speakers came from Greece.
For those (few? many?) who stayed after the initial Roman presence, it is very probable that Roman identities were deep influences - an analogy with the Franks and the Goths is helpful. Not only did Romans leave, Slavs stayed there for decades - yet the language we speak has about as many Slavic words as French has Frankish words or Spanish Wisigothic. Not to say that Slavic presence was not to leave traces. In fact, if you want to, you could change your assertion to "of Romance (Italic is a misnomer) - Slavic inheritance". In this sense, I don't believe that pre-Roman identities are to be counted (although a handful words are to be found only in Albanian and Romanian).
The basic Romance-speakers were a pastoral population, yet the words for all agricultural activities in Romanian are Latin. The Roman presence in Romania-proper did leave some traces, but I feel no need to exagerate them.
The Vlachs have a history of their own. I'm gonna get cursed by Romanian nationalists, but theirs is not a population to be connected with ours in many ways other than speaking a Romance language of the same group. I cannot understand a word of Macedonian Vlach, yet I can understand Spanish.
To resume my point: "we" did not exist back then, for Romanians or for any other people. Things don't go happening "en masse", and there are numerous things to balance in an argument. If we're talking about Romance-speakers in the Balkans between 200AD and 1300AD, they where many identities who did many things in several places. You find that no one thing describes the situation fully, but that because things do not happen monolithically or to monoliths.
Add to this that the modern state is not a product of national "families", nor does it need to speak of common identities. For example, I am born Romanian, but my family comprises Bulgarians and Vlachs (much like the Romanian people itself, wouldn't you say?). I'm Romanian for filling the criteria that gave me Romanian citizenship, and that's all.
May I ask where you're from?

:( Why is everybody falling for the old migration theory? This theory was invented in the XIXth century by the Hungarians in an attempt to justify their rule of Transylvania, but in academic circles it is completely discredited.

that's funny, i was of the opinion that the continuity theory was invented by romanians to justify their rule over wallachia and is completely discarded just about everywhere outside of romania.

the original roman settlement was very short-lived and the sources are quite clear that it was entirely removed. there was then a thousand years of heavy migration where not only the population of romania but also the population of modern day bulgaria, albania, yugoslavia, turkey, syria, iraq, persia, italy, spain, britain and greece underwent huge ethnic changes.

to think that these romanians lasted a thousand years when everybody else around them was slaughtered and decimated makes no sense. why is there no record or trace of roman settlement in the area for a thousand years if they were actually indeed there? what were they doing? living in caves?


And returning to the ancestry, regardless of the migrations, the different populations were not much changed. Even if Slavic tribes entered the Balkans, the Serbians, Croatians and Bulgarians don't look like the Russians and the Poles. They look like the Thracians and Illyrians looked like 2000 years ago.

do you have any photographic evidence? that last statement seems like a ridiculous one to make.

the thracians and illyrians had orange hair and blue eyes; none of the slavs have these characteristics.

so, of course the populations were changed, and quite drastically. the slavic migrations heavily outnumbered the byzantine settlements. we're not talking a little trickle of people here, we're talking millions of people in wave after wave after wave of migration.

furthermore, we're talking several different ethnic groups here. the serbians and croatians are iranians interbred with illyrians, slavs and romans. the bulgarians are turks who have been assimilated by slavs and also intermixed with byzantine greeks. the russians and poles are slavs with heavy baltic and germanic mixture.

that's why they look different; they're completely different races of people that speak similar languages.

that's funny, i was of the opinion that the continuity theory was invented by romanians to justify their rule over wallachia and is completely discarded just about everywhere outside of romania.

No, it's not discredited, it is standard. And it should be: it must be nuanced, however. "to justify their rule over wallachia" - I don't think anyone has contested the rule over Wallachia, man. Wallachia is the region around Bucharest. If there are no Romanians there, then there are no Romanians at all.

the original roman settlement was very short-lived and the sources are quite clear that it was entirely removed. there was then a thousand years of heavy migration where not only the population of romania but also the population of modern day bulgaria, albania, yugoslavia, turkey, syria, iraq, persia, italy, spain, britain and greece underwent huge ethnic changes.

You're ignoring local conditions. See France: where are the Franks. See Spain: where are the Wisigoths? See Italy: Where are the Ostrogoths? Not meant to exagerate facts, and not drawing the conclusion that I stem from noble Latium seed. But Roman presence had an extra advantage to it: where it was established, it created the rudiments of a life that was associated with them.

to think that these romanians lasted a thousand years when everybody else around them was slaughtered and decimated makes no sense. why is there no record or trace of roman settlement in the area for a thousand years if they were actually indeed there? what were they doing? living in caves?

No, not slaughtered and decimated. This is a cliche about invasions.
Romance-speakers either cohabitated with rulers that lived off the resources they gathered (and we have something like 2% invadors out of the total mixed population - again, like Franks), or retreated to the mountains.
Wherever it happened otherwise, it did so because invadors remained stable, and not shaken by other invasions (think Anglo-Saxons or Hungarians). This land was swept by all invasions imaginable, and most fighting was probably at the top of the social structure.

do you have any photographic evidence? that last statement seems like a ridiculous one to make.
the thracians and illyrians had orange hair and blue eyes; none of the slavs have these characteristics.

The point itself is absurd, and it is superfluous. Why do people even need to look into these terms? They're subjective and lead to no conclusion.

furthermore, we're talking several different ethnic groups here. the serbians and croatians are iranians interbred with illyrians, slavs and romans. the bulgarians are turks who have been assimilated by slavs and also intermixed with byzantine greeks. the russians and poles are slavs with heavy baltic and germanic mixture.

More racism.
And why Iranians? Only Ante Pavelic favored this absurdity.

Hm. Constantine probably sent his troops here a century after the Roman retreat. I debate that.

even if he did...

However, what can be said to have been Romance-speakers were enemies of Byzanthines - Ana Comnena goes on about how they marauded in the Balkans against imperial troops.

i'm about a quarter of the way through the alexiad at the moment, actually. a


So, there was no Neo-Greek presence in that form, nor is it necessity to assume that the Romance-speakers came from Greece.

i''ll grant that, but if not from greece, from where?


May I ask where you're from?

i am a canadian citizen of mixed seljuk, greek, norwegian, welsh, irish, scottish, sicilian, arab, french and cree [a native american tribe] ancestry. i'm 5'8' with black hair and green eyes. i tan quickly in the summer and go pasty white in the winter.

WWI was started by too many causes that were long-term, medium-term, short-term, and precipitating.

i''ll grant that, but if not from greece, from where?
Bulgaria. And, yes, Romania itself.

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

Primarily France, and its desire to have revenge on Germany for the war of 1870-71. This lead to the series of treaties which bound all the other countries to enter the war once it had started. Otherwise, it would have just been a war between Russia and Serbia on one side and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other.

ok....treaty of versailles, shmeaty of versailles.....who actually *did* start world war one?

It wasn't me honest! :sniper:

that's funny, i was of the opinion that the continuity theory was invented by romanians to justify their rule over wallachia and is completely discarded just about everywhere outside of romania.
Please check before making such assumptions.

the original roman settlement was very short-lived and the sources are quite clear that it was entirely removed. there was then a thousand years of heavy migration where not only the population of romania but also the population of modern day bulgaria, albania, yugoslavia, turkey, syria, iraq, persia, italy, spain, britain and greece underwent huge ethnic changes.

to think that these romanians lasted a thousand years when everybody else around them was slaughtered and decimated makes no sense. why is there no record or trace of roman settlement in the area for a thousand years if they were actually indeed there? what were they doing? living in caves?
Execuse me, but there is actually extensive proof of habitation. It's just that there are no documents to tell us the language those inhabitants were talking. But there are many indirect proofs that point to a continuity. For example, after the Romans officially evacuate the province of Dacia, the cities slowly become deserted. As this ruralisation progresses, new villages appear around the old urban centers. The obvious conclusion is that the old inhabitants are moving to the countryside.

Talking about the linguistic evidence now. The Romanian word 'pacura' describes a type of oil. It is derived from the Latin word 'picula'. South of the Danube there is no oil. North of the Danube, there is quite a lot. If the Romanians had come from the South, then they shouldn't have a Latin word for oil. The fact they have it shows they formed and stayed in region which had oil. The only such place is modern day Romania.

do you have any photographic evidence? that last statement seems like a ridiculous one to make.

the thracians and illyrians had orange hair and blue eyes; none of the slavs have these characteristics.
I don't have photografic evidence, but there are archeological remains (skeletons, in English :)) which can be compared with the modern day inhabitants. Which source do you know saying the Thracians and Illyrians were red haired?

so, of course the populations were changed, and quite drastically. the slavic migrations heavily outnumbered the byzantine settlements. we're not talking a little trickle of people here, we're talking millions of people in wave after wave after wave of migration.
Wow, that news to me! Millions of people? Again, which sources told you the numbers of those slavic tribes?

furthermore, we're talking several different ethnic groups here. the serbians and croatians are iranians interbred with illyrians, slavs and romans. the bulgarians are turks who have been assimilated by slavs and also intermixed with byzantine greeks. the russians and poles are slavs with heavy baltic and germanic mixture.

that's why they look different; they're completely different races of people that speak similar languages.
My god, we need a proffessional historian arround here.

It was proposed by the Croatians that the Alans were Iranian. Maybe they were. But all the migrators were much less numerous than the population over which they held dominion. In Spain, IIRC, the Visigoths were a few hundread thousand in a population of six million. The Bulgarians are Turks, but again I have to point out their low numbers compared to the original population.

Bogmihia, you Romanian?

Bogmihia, you Romanian?
Yes. Buna seara! :)

Yes. Buna seara! :)
Noroc! :)

What made you realise it? The example about the word 'pacura'?

Oh my, this discussion is more and more drifting away from the original topic.

What made you realise it? The example about the word 'pacura'?
Actually,that's it. I suspected it since your first post, but I thought you might be a Bulgarian or Serbian sympathetic to Balkan unity or something (I've met some Bulgarians who were like that). The "pacura" thing did it.

Oh my, this discussion is more and more drifting away from the original topic.
Let's get back. And your option on the original topic is...

Let's get back. And your option on the original topic is..."the events that led to world war one are not the fault of any one country"

That's the option I chose, because:

1) Serbia clearly is not gulity of starting WW1.

2) Even Austria wanted only a better position in the Balkans. While this is condemnable, it's far from Hitler's wishes in WW2.

3) The other countries were atracted on one side or the other of the war because of the alliance system which existed in the world at the time.

That's one of the few wars that nobody wanted, but still happened.

Obviously Malta and Brazil, split 50/50.

:confused: Malta? What's Malta got to do with anything? :confused:

:eek: Oh, I see... They were part of the CONSPIRACY! Say no more! :rolleyes:

Fnord!

Everyone knows that the war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.

Common knowledge. :)

WWI was started by too many causes that were long-term, medium-term, short-term, and precipitating.

True..but those events in and of themselves were not WWI. Austria-Hungary was the country to draw up a declaration of war first.

No one started it, its just that Europe hadnt had a good war for several years and wanted to wave each others penises at each other.

No really, lets face it, we were all spoiling for a fight, and the moment the archduke of Austria-Hungary got shot everyone thought "Aha, time to show those huns (or tommies, depending on preference) who is boss"

At which point the most godawful war in history was started.

Everyone knows that the war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.


"The British Empire currently covers half the globe, whereas the German Empire currently covers a small sausage factory in tangynikeia (sp?) I dont think we are entirely blameless on the imperialism front"

"Of course sir (you see? completely mad)"

If you can pin it down to one nation, although they had been building up to a war for about the prior 30 or 40 years at least, it would be Austria-Hungary. Franz Ferdinand's assasination, while important in the Balkan Region, should not have led to the ultimatium made to Serbia (which they accepted and Austria-Hungary ignored and declared war on them).

WWI was caused by Germany getting jealous of the Britain and France's empires (basically all the pie was gone and Germany wanted a slice) I don't think the Russian-French alliance helped at all to ease hostility since Germany began to feel threatened and increasingly isolated

if they pie had only been bigger dammit!

No one truly started WWI, because it was inevitable with the onslaught and convergence of ideaology and technology in Europe. However, if anyone needs to take blame, it is Germany. The very act of unifying upsetted the balance of power that left Europe peaceful for so long. Worse yet, when Chancellor Bismarck was given the pink slip by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the Kaiser shamelessly built an overseas empire and armed himself, putting his nation in conflict with Britain and France. Giving a "blank check" of defense to Austria-Hungary didn't help matters, either.

However, if anyone needs to take blame, it is Germany. The very act of unifying upsetted the balance of power that left Europe peaceful for so long.
That's like blaming slaves for the US civil war - if they hadn't been there, there would've been no war...

That's like blaming slaves for the US civil war - if they hadn't been there, there would've been no war...
Well, slavery was a very big part of why that conflict started simply because it existed. That's life.

Well, slavery was a very big part of why that conflict started simply because it existed. That's life.
And yet you wouldn't hold the slaves responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 people.

It's not like the Germans should have needed to drop the dream of a unified country because it might make poor Britain feel all insecure about itself.

And yet you wouldn't hold the slaves responsible for the deaths of some 600,000 people.

It's not like the Germans should have needed to drop the dream of a unified country because it might make poor Britain feel all insecure about itself.
I'm not saying Germany had no right to unify. If anything, it probably needed to unify. Otherwise, the war may have never happened, and the world would only be a handful of liberal democracies with a bunch of crackpot dictators. However, if the British, French, nor Russians had anything to fear, why would they fight?

That's like blaming slaves for the US civil war - if they hadn't been there, there would've been no war...
But The American Civil War was about Southerns protecting their live style.

Wow, i'm just writing this for AS Level history coursework, so here goes...

1. After the defeat of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna decides to rebuild Europe as a system of Great Powers, which is stable as long as no new Great Powers rise (i.e. Germany)

2. There were many long-term rivalries, notably between the Uk and Germany, , France and Germany, and France and the UK, over African territory.

3. Waiser Wilheim II was really, really, crap. He doesn't have a problem with insulting his allies (Usually Britain before the Boer Wars) and then whines about it. He also creates a system whereby he is surrounded, something that Chancellor Bismarck prevented.

4. What sparkes it off is Austria-Hungary blaming Serbia for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, when it was independant action. Wilhelm II then provokes Austria-Hungary into using its army and then without reason attacks France, Belhium and Luxembourg.

Basically, it's the fault of the way Europe was rebuilt after Napoleon, although short-term blame can be put onto 1. A-H for starting it and 2. Germnay for spreading it.

Wow, i'm just writing this for AS Level history coursework, so here goes...

4. What sparkes it off is Austria-Hungary blaming Serbia for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, when it was independant action. Wilhelm II then provokes Austria-Hungary into using its army and then without reason attacks France, Belhium and Luxembourg.

France was Allied with Russia who woud support Serbia.
So there is a good reason.
Smash the French like what happened in 1870 and then you crush Russia.
Too bad it was the other way around.

Patriotism.

Britain.

Y'see, I've read up on this subject (The Pity of War, which was written by a British Author, Niall Ferguson), and Britain, even if it didn't start the war, certainly didn't help avoid it. Britain could have been more friendly towards Germany, and convinced it "Hey, you don't have to start getting all defensive here." But did it? Noooooooooooooooo. So, Germany felt threatened, and when Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia, Germany lept at the chance to fight a war. And then Britain entered. I mean come on, do you really think Britain would sacrifice millions of Empire troops for Belgium?

Of course, the war wasn't all Britains falt, but they made it go from a small conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary to a World War.

Britain.

Y'see, I've read up on this subject (The Pity of War, which was written by a British Author, Niall Ferguson), and Britain, even if it didn't start the war, certainly didn't help avoid it. Britain could have been more friendly towards Germany, and convinced it "Hey, you don't have to start getting all defensive here." But did it? Noooooooooooooooo. So, Germany felt threatened, and when Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia, Germany lept at the chance to fight a war. And then Britain entered. I mean come on, do you really think Britain would sacrifice millions of Empire troops for Belgium?

Of course, the war wasn't all Britains falt, but they made it go from a small conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary to a World War.

Finally, someone who agrees with me. I've also read a book which goes into the causes of war beyond the standard (and shamelessly pro-British) version of history.

For example, Britain is in large part for escalating the naval arms race between Germany and herself. Germany imposed voluntarily restrictions on the size of its own fleet (agreeing that it should be no more than 2/3rds of the British fleet) so that she would not be perceived as a threat by Britain whilst still making their own colonial ambitions possible. The warmongerers in the British parliament had to establish an act with the ridiculous objective of having the fleet size of any two other largest powers combined. The British admiralty lied, repeatedly, about the number of dreadnoughts Germany possessed (grocery exaggerating the number) so Germany would appear to be more of a threat.

More importantly, the whole idea behind the British Expeditionary Force was that it was the part of a top secret Franco-British plan to start a war with Germany around the year 1916 so the French could get their revenge and the British could take out an important competitor. They later included Tsarist Russia in this conspiracy. The highly trained British Expeditionary Force was already there for years because it had been created to invade Germany, it was not some sort of volunteer force to aid Belgium.

And that does not even mention the continuing British agitation in the Balkans against Austro-Hungary.

It all just flung in their faces because the 1914 incidents meant that the war broke out before the British conspirators actually intended for it to break out. If anything, the role of the British is severly underplayed by biased historians and that is why I voted 'Britain'. ;)

Couldn't it be Franz Joseph's fault? He was an ignorant, intolerant, insane, lonely, old man. I vaguely recall having read a quotation saying that he does no longer believe that his country could be rescued and that he wants it to have an heroic end?
:(

Couldn't it be Franz Joseph's fault? He was an ignorant, intolerant, insane, lonely, old man. I vaguely recall having read a quotation saying that he does no longer believe that his country could be rescued and that he wants it to have an heroic end?
:(

Franz Joseph? He has a glacier named after him (http://www.franzjosefglacier.com/) in the south island of new zealand...

Franz Joseph? He has a glacier named after him (http://www.franzjosefglacier.com/) in the south island of new zealand...

Have you been on Franz Josef? :D

Have you been on Franz Josef? :D


I've viewed it, but I never got as far as standing on it.

I've viewed it, but I never got as far as standing on it.

offtopic: I hope all New Zealanders in here know how lucky they are living in such a beautiful country :)

@topic: it was nationalism, intolerance, hatred and idiocy - just like in all other wars :headbang:

i think its serbia, since the reason of Austria-Hungary starting the war was due to a serbian assasinating the A-H Emperor(dont remember his name) so AH declared war on serbia, russia entered to protect its slavic ally, serbia, then germany entered the war, but attacked france, so britian enetered then all... but the serbian who killed the Emperore of Austria Hungary is responsilbe, and since he is serbian then i guess serbia is responsible...

Franz Joseph? He has a glacier named after him (http://www.franzjosefglacier.com/) in the south island of new zealand...
That's also an Archipelago on the other side of Earth (in the Barents Sea).


Has anyone here read "Soldier Svejk"? It's a good book for many reasons - it goes on and on about the Archipelago being the only Austro-Hungarian colony (it wasn't), and does it in the funniest way.

Now that I mentioned it, it so deals with the topic at hand:
"So, Mr. Svejk, they've murdered our Ferdinand"
"Which Ferdinand, Mrs. Mullerova? I know two of that name. One was a servant of Prusa the apothecary, who once drank, by mistake, a bottle of comfrey. The other one, Ferdinand Kokoska, used to gather dog turd. I'd say it's no loss if they killed one or the other."

Or:
"It is loss, no doubt about that. Horrible loss. Ferdinand cannot be replaced by just any cretin. It would've helped if he were a little fatter."
"Just what do you mean, Mr. Svejk?"
"What do I mean?" answered Svejk calmly. "Look, it's quite simple. If he had been fatter, there's no doubt that palsy would have got him earlier, when he was running after old women who were gathering firewood and mushrooms on his estate in Konopiste, and that wouldn't have been as shameful a death as this one. I sit and wonder about it: the emperor's nephew... and them gentlemen... they shoot him. It's such a disgrace, the newspapers are having a field day. Back where I was, in Budejovice, many years ago, during a small argument at the market, they stabbed a certain cattle dealer named Bretislav Ludvik. He had a son named Bohuslav, and, wherever he went to sell swine, nobody would buy any off of him and everyone would say: "That's the son of the guy that got stabbed, he's likely to be a rascal like his dad". Finally, he was driven to jump in the Vltava off the Krumlov bridge; they had to fish him out, bring him back to the life, pump the water out of his body, only for him to expire in the arms of the doctor who was giving him an injection."
"You sure make strange comparisons, Mr. Svejk. You start with Ferdinand and end with a cattle dealer."
"God forbid, by no means! Me, make such an association? The bartender knows what I mean. Let him say: have I ever made such comparisons between two people? Well, to be frank, I wouldn't want to be the Archduke's widow these days. What is she to do now? The kids are orphaned, the estate in Konopiste has no master. Should she marry another Archduke? He'd just be going to Sarajevo himself, and she'll be a widow for the second time around."

but the serbian who killed the Emperore of Austria Hungary is responsilbe, and since he is serbian then i guess serbia is responsible...
He wasn't Serbian. He was an Austrian citizen of Serb ethnicity.

Franz Joseph? He has a glacier named after him (http://www.franzjosefglacier.com/) in the south island of new zealand...
Dont listen to them or yourself it was serbia.

Franz Joseph? He has a glacier named after him in the south island of new zealand...
Dont listen to them or yourself it was serbia.
?

?
Exactly what are you blabbering on about?

Exactly what are you blabbering on about?
Serbia is a glacier off the coast of New Zealand?

Still more of Svejk's wisdom:
"I tend to think it's also that Mr. The Archduke got it wrong about the man who shot him Sarajevo. It's likely he has seen this particular gentleman out there in the crowd and thought he must be a decent man for chanting "hurray". And what do you know, that man was the end of him. Just how many bullets did he shoot, one or several?"
"They write in the newspapers that Mr. The Archduke was all holes. He emptied a round on him."
"Yes, well, that's something that needs to be done fast, Mrs. Mullerova, really fast. What I would do for a job like that is to get me a Browning. It looks like a toy, but with it you can shoot twenty Archdukes - thin, fat, or both kinds -all in two minutes. Although, between you and me, Mrs. Mullerova, you could hit a fat Archduke better than you could a thin one. Do you remember when they shot their king in Portugal? That guy was pretty stocky as well. No wonder: where has anyone ever seen a thin king?"

Serbia is a glacier off the coast of New Zealand?
That may be so but which Coast?

I voted for Deustchland. Why?

1) Austria-Hungary would not have pressed the ultimatum as far as they did if they did not have Germany's guarantee of support. They most certainly did have it.

2) Serbia gave in to most of the Austro-Hungarian demands concerning the investigation of the assassination. They were not being obstinate.

3) Germany alienated nearly everyone, arguably causing the alliance system that destroyed it. Bismarck had remembered to stay on positive terms with Russia, but Wilhelm wasted no time in letting their pact expire and leaving Russia no option but to seek alliance with France.

Also keep in mind that England and France had been historical enemies and bitter rivals up through the late 19th century. But Germany just had to aspire to have a Kriegsmarine that rivaled the Royal Navy. There were other things that united the Entente Powers for a war in Europe, sure, but Germany's being a jerk didn't help anything.

4) Other nations may have been nationalised and prepared for war, but Germany's war plans specifically involved invading other nations PREEMPTIVELY. They had a very precise schedule that considered how long it would take each nation to mobilise for war; their plan was to smash France before Russia could be ready to fight effectively.

Once the rising Austro-Serbian tensions caused Russia to begin mobilising, Germany felt it HAD to act. Russia wasn't supposed to mobilise until war had already started, so if war were to have started later then Germany wouldn't have had the time to incapacitate France before Russia was prepared.

With this mindframe, the crisis HAD to result in a war. To Germany, war would begin anyway, so it might as well be in their favor.

Look at the timeline of war declarations. Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia (after ensuring they would have German support) is the first one. The second war declaration is when Germany declares war on Russia. Why? Because Russia wouldn't stop preparing for war. Those belligerant Russians.

Then Germany goes on. Invading/declaring war on France before France even has time to honour its alliance with Russia. Invading/declaring war on Belgium and Luxembourg so as to invade France more easily, after Britain had clearly stated that violating Belgian neutrality would result in war.

Imperial Germany may not have been as evil as the Nazi Third Reich, but they certainly were the biggest jerks of their day.

Germany alienated nearly everyone, arguably causing the alliance system that destroyed it. Bismarck had remembered to stay on positive terms with Russia, but Wilhelm wasted no time in letting their pact expire and leaving Russia no option but to seek alliance with France.
That is a valid point.

Also keep in mind that England and France had been historical enemies and bitter rivals up through the late 19th century.
The Crimean War comes to mind...

Other nations may have been nationalised and prepared for war, but Germany's war plans specifically involved invading other nations PREEMPTIVELY.
That is not being a jerk though. You wouldn't expect the military to do anything but to deal with the world as it is presented to them.
The Schlieffen Plan was a direct response to the alliance system of the time, and a completely justified one at that.

With this mindframe, the crisis HAD to result in a war. To Germany, war would begin anyway, so it might as well be in their favor.
Honestly, what could Germany have done differently? (Other than make it clear to Austria that they wouldn't go. You'll notice that Bethman-Hollweg actually wanted the them to back off, and the Emperor said nothing - the only actual reinforcment came from less than official military channels.)

Those belligerant Russians.
That's correct. By your logic you might as well say that it was Russia's fault - afterall, it was between Austria and Serbia, the Russians weren't involved.

Imperial Germany may not have been as evil as the Nazi Third Reich, but they certainly were the biggest jerks of their day.
Define "jerk".

Neu Leonstein: join the Blame-the-British club then!

Neu Leonstein: join the Blame-the-British club then!
Lacadaemon is just waiting for it...

But no, I agree that Germany's leadership had a lot to do with making it as large as it was.

I'd primarily blame Austria and Russia, because it were those two's imperial and territorial aspirations that started it.
Austria wanted Serbia, and Russia wanted the Mediterranean (and regain its confidence after the Japan debacle). And those two shamelessly used their alliances as tools to further their interests.

Neu Leonstein: join the Blame-the-British club then!
It was Belgium for getting in the way of Germany's ambition to out Flank France.

Actually, I'm trying to reconsider the issue from the perspective of being Malta's fault (one of the options).

I know nothing of Maltese revolution movements against the British during this time, or even if such movements would have hypothetically had impact on tensions between the two major alliances... so I'm going with "Super Secret Knights of St. John Conspiracy".

Actually, I'm trying to reconsider the issue from the perspective of being Malta's fault (one of the options).

I know nothing of Maltese revolution movements against the British during this time, or even if such movements would have hypothetically had impact on tensions between the two major alliances... so I'm going with "Super Secret Knights of St. John Conspiracy".

i'm extremely impressed that somebody actually figured out what i meant.

The Evil Bush started WW I .

No, it's not discredited, it is standard. And it should be: it must be nuanced, however. "to justify their rule over wallachia" - I don't think anyone has contested the rule over Wallachia, man. Wallachia is the region around Bucharest. If there are no Romanians there, then there are no Romanians at all.

1. i've never seen it advanced in anything i've ever read outside of as a peripheral mention designed to balance the argument. however, i will admit that i'm not an expert in romanian history.

2. i understand that if there are no romanians in wallachia, there are no romanians at all. however, just because the romanians exist as a nationality does not automatically grant them the right of self-determination. maybe in an ideal world it would, but this is not an ideal world. as such, romanian nationalists have felt the need to create a history for themselves to justify their rule over their land and protect themselves from sometimes hostile neighbours, be they hungarians or russians. i did not ever insinuate that romania did not deserve to rule over wallachia, only that this theory has been created to counter (aggressive) hungarian claims over the north and rally the people into a jingoist furor.....and judging from the response, it has certainly worked.


You're ignoring local conditions. See France: where are the Franks.


genetic evidence has shown that the inhabitants of belgium and north-eastern france are quite closely related to the ones in western germany. there was little (if any) frankish migration to the south of france. your answer, then, is that the franks were christianized and adopted latin due to this lifestyle change....but that the franks are still living, to this day, in belgium and north-eastern france.


See Spain: where are the Wisigoths?


i don't know the final place of settlement of the visigoths, but i would suspect a similar result as that of france.


See Italy: Where are the Ostrogoths?


the ostrogoths were mostly replaced in the north by lombards, and later in the south by greeks fleeing slav incursions. all were assimilated into latin culture and hence adopted the language. again, genetic testing has confirmed these well known historical migrations.


Not meant to exagerate facts, and not drawing the conclusion that I stem from noble Latium seed. But Roman presence had an extra advantage to it: where it was established, it created the rudiments of a life that was associated with them.


....and one that the invaders, generally, adopted...


No, not slaughtered and decimated. This is a cliche about invasions.


ok...not every invasion was as brutal as every other. the anglo-saxon invasion was mostly peaceful, something that can be confirmed genetically by the fact that the population of britain is not german but actually celtic. the scandinavian expansion into russia has left little trace of viking blood.

however, the slavic/avar incursions were particularly bloody, as were the gothic incursions and the mongol incursions....and most definately the english invasions into north america.

so, no, not every invasion led to slaughtering and decimation. but it is well established that the slavic invasion [or, more accurately the avar invasion] of south-eastern europe really did.


Romance-speakers either cohabitated with rulers that lived off the resources they gathered (and we have something like 2% invadors out of the total mixed population - again, like Franks),


your numbers are completely backwards. in france, the north-west is predominantly german, even though they speak latin. in the south, there were no frankish invasions outside of political expansions....so we want to speak of 98% franks in north-eastern france, their homeland, and certainly many less in the south.

in romania, things are different. we would have had dacians there up until the gothic migrations; the initial roman settlement was not large enough to have had much effect on the original dacian population even if it did survive....but it didn't, the area was, to use a modern term, "ethnically cleansed" by goths, who were attacked by huns [who had little genetic effect on the area because they migrated back out very quickly], who led to a new german dominance, that of gepids [who were decimated by the avars], and then of avars [who had little effect as they kept themselves segregated from their european slaves] and their slavic allies. the model the avars used was to invade a new plot of land, pillage it, loot it, kill the inhabitants and retreat back to the grazing lands; in this process, slavs would fall into the newly opened land and open it for cultivation. that might not sound very nice, and it may offend some avars today, but i don't care; this is the historically known explanation of the slavic/avar migration and can be found in any easily accessible book on slavic history. the original point of expansion was actually *in* the mountains, the carpathians, as it was THE SLAVS who were the mountain dwellers, the ones who had to flee even earlier invasions by goths, east germans, scythians and sarmatians...even early thracians [cimmerians].

it wasn't until the roman empire itself reconquered this area north of the danube that any roman presence existed, and this was most likely the result of the empire expelling vlachs from greece to the outsides of the empire. the empire very often moved large ethnic groups around from place to place [there are many armenians in macedonia, etc....].

so, yes, the original romanians [dacians] would have fleed into the mountains, but they never made it out, and those that did it would have been in numbers small enough that they were simply absorbed by the slavic population. there simply were not enough original roman settlers to have maintained a continuity, especially considering that the vast majority of them were removed. christianity may have also had some role to play in the extent of the spread of the language north of the danube, but the vlachs are migratory and we may just as easily assume that they spread out on their own and split off into two major dialects from there.

the short answer is that mitochondrial dna testing has killed the continuity argument. you are genetically related to the people of northern greece.


Wherever it happened otherwise, it did so because invadors remained stable, and not shaken by other invasions (think Anglo-Saxons or Hungarians).


but what actually happened in england is that a small aristocracy politically forced it's way onto a large population, changing it's language by pure accident due to political and economic reasons, and affecting the population very little. genetic testing has concluded the situations are not comparable.


More racism.

i do not take accusations of these sort lightly at all.

Please check before making such assumptions.

the only assumption is yours.


Execuse me, but there is actually extensive proof of habitation. It's just that there are no documents to tell us the language those inhabitants were talking. But there are many indirect proofs that point to a continuity. For example, after the Romans officially evacuate the province of Dacia, the cities slowly become deserted. As this ruralisation progresses, new villages appear around the old urban centers. The obvious conclusion is that the old inhabitants are moving to the countryside.


no. the obvious connection is that the old inhabitants (dacians) moved into the mountains when they were not slaughtered, and that the villages were set up by the new inhabitants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians


Talking about the linguistic evidence now. The Romanian word 'pacura' describes a type of oil. It is derived from the Latin word 'picula'. South of the Danube there is no oil. North of the Danube, there is quite a lot. If the Romanians had come from the South, then they shouldn't have a Latin word for oil. The fact they have it shows they formed and stayed in region which had oil. The only such place is modern day Romania.


no it doesn't. there were tons of latin speakers in the north of greece from as far back as justinian. if these people were latinized in northern greece and pushed north of the danube, they would have brought their latin word for oil to the north with them. to accept your argument, we must assume that the latin speakers of the balkans had no word for oil, which is pushing the realms of plausibility.


I don't have photografic evidence, but there are archeological remains (skeletons, in English :)) which can be compared with the modern day inhabitants. Which source do you know saying the Thracians and Illyrians were red haired?


i am unaware of this kind of archaeological evidence, but the genetic evidence is unambiguous.

just about every source that spoke of the thracians from the time of homer onwards noted their long, flowing red hair....


Wow, that news to me! Millions of people? Again, which sources told you the numbers of those slavic tribes?


a.a. vasiliev.


It was proposed by the Croatians that the Alans were Iranian.


it is accepted historical fact that the alans were a sarmatian tribe. their remnants today in the caucausus [the ossetians] speak an eastern iranian language.


Maybe they were. But all the migrators were much less numerous than the population over which they held dominion.

not all of them, but in the case of the following examples:


In Spain, IIRC, the Visigoths were a few hundread thousand in a population of six million. The Bulgarians are Turks, but again I have to point out their low numbers compared to the original population.

i would agree. i am not sure of the number of visigoths that actually made it to spain, but i would deduce it must have been fairly small given that the migration was so long and that the main hub of visgothic migration was actually southern france. the main migratory force underneath the bulgar invasion was, again, slavic.

1. i've never seen it advanced in anything i've ever read outside of as a peripheral mention designed to balance the argument. however, i will admit that i'm not an expert in romanian history.

I'm not going to stress it any further. I just think it is a respectable and respected idea, when based on observation and not nationalism (when it accepts that a south-of-the-Danube presence had its contribution, when it understands that no idea about then can decide for today). The other idea has been put forward by people with an agenda, and it has made its way into science circles, mainly because Romanians had no access to them until the XXth century.
And it is not surprising. I study history, and I am stunned at the ammount of ignorance about where I live in foreign scientific literature (not to mention common literature), even in newly-published books. Forget the biased or the questionable, these people get away with publishing wrong info - spelling names unbelievably wrong, getting succesions of events so very wrong etc. Childlike mistakes, that only serve to discredit the general point they're making (that's if they're making one).

2. i understand that if there are no romanians in wallachia, there are no romanians at all. however, just because the romanians exist as a nationality does not automatically grant them the right of self-determination. maybe in an ideal world it would, but this is not an ideal world. as such, romanian nationalists have felt the need to create a history for themselves to justify their rule over their land and protect themselves from sometimes hostile neighbours, be they hungarians or russians. i did not ever insinuate that romania did not deserve to rule over wallachia, only that this theory has been created to counter (aggressive) hungarian claims over the north and rally the people into a jingoist furor.....and judging from the response, it has certainly worked.

Man, what I meant was that Wallachia is the historical region in the South, the one never to be contested by anyone really. It was a monor correction, to stress that all the issue is in fact about Transylvania: in the sense that, even if I'd adopt your views, I'd have to use the proper designating terms. There is no territorial claim to Wallachia, and no competition over it. In that sense, those inhabitants, regardless of their historical origin, would have to be "the Romanians" (it's the core of the term). A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but you would have to name that rose something. You see, it was not jingoism.
And then, since we're talking about Transylvania: I cannot agree with the points that nationalists made on either side, but it's quite clear that people who will to call themselves Romanian have a crushing majority and have hade it for a long time. "A long time" = they took the first surveys that indicate ethnicity in the 1700s, and the surveys show it then as well. And they were easy to trace even before that! Why? Incidentally, it answers that bit about jingoism: because they were synonymous with serfs since the 1400s (except for the ones living high in the mountains, which had been granted autonomy by the Austrian Crown in the long period before 1867 when it didn't need to court Hungarian noblemen). The constitutional basis in Transylvania imposed the privileged "nations" (not the modern term; roughly, three sets of nobility) - Hungarian, Saxon, Szekely. Now, if you stop and think about it: do you imagine forteen noblemen living off the work of one serf? There you have it: the majority was not Hungarian.
The people who back the "coming into" have done it with a political agenda. Hungarian nationalists could not and cannot justify themselves as majority, so they imply that the majority in Transylvania is newly arrived as well. Four things:
1. It doesn't really matter now, does it? Even if they are right, so what? That they don't win a democratic vote is ultimately more relevant than anything.
2. If "they" were to come shortly after "us", why would not wipe "us" out? Let's see the pattern in the quick succesion over these territories: whomever came got rid of the other - the Goths had to go because of the Huns, the Hungarians themselves and the Bulgarians because of the Kazars etc. Not only did "we" stay, "we" were powerful enough to wipe out whomever was on the spot before "us", and yet we couldn't touch "them"...
3. If "they" were to come just before us, how come they are still around? Again, "we" supposedly conquered the place. How come the vast majority of Romanians became serfs and not rulers? Can you imagine the newly-arrived Franks as slaves to the Gauls?
4. Hungarians did not form a single unit themselves. Aside the minority upper thrust from some Romaninas who became Catholics, the Hungarians massively colonized people like Germans and Chuvash (Chuvash was still spoken in the XIXth century Puszta).

genetic evidence has shown that the inhabitants of belgium and north-eastern france are quite closely related to the ones in western germany. there was little (if any) frankish migration to the south of france. your answer, then, is that the franks were christianized and adopted latin due to this lifestyle change....but that the franks are still living, to this day, in belgium and north-eastern france.

i don't know the final place of settlement of the visigoths, but i would suspect a similar result as that of france.

the ostrogoths were mostly replaced in the north by lombards, and later in the south by greeks fleeing slav incursions. all were assimilated into latin culture and hence adopted the language. again, genetic testing has confirmed these well known historical migrations.

It does not matter if you look Frankish, or Romanian, or Hungarian. It matters if you value being one according to your own personal criteria. You don't "find" them, you ask a question and they answer ("Sir, are you Romanian?" "Yes" "Are you aware that your grandfather is Turkish and two of your grandmothers are Slovak? Oh, and your other grandpa is a Dane." "Yes, but I am Romanian."). You cannot and you should not go further than this, and if you look in the past you have to ask:
-wether ethnicity existed as an option.
It did not exist as such, but there are two major eyesores that cannot be ignored: most of the serfs did not speak the language of the land (and they were not being taught the language - so there was no chance in hell of blurring the lines between the masters and the owned, as eventually happend in, let's say, France); most of the serfs were, and remained, Eastern Orthodox (they were encouraged not to make the switch, since it was justifyable to enslave followers of a heresy; at 1700, when the Austrians tried to break the medieval pattern, together with abolishing serfdom, they offered the Orthodox the chance of adhering to the Uniate Church, but the experiment failed when the Hungarians would refuse to include converts into even middle strata of society, fearing that the Austrians encouraged a loyalty to Vienna that would marginalize them).

....and one that the invaders, generally, adopted...

Again, invanders could not be subdued and made to work by the invaded.



ok...not every invasion was as brutal as every other. the anglo-saxon invasion was mostly peaceful, something that can be confirmed genetically by the fact that the population of britain is not german but actually celtic. the scandinavian expansion into russia has left little trace of viking blood.

however, the slavic/avar incursions were particularly bloody, as were the gothic incursions and the mongol incursions....and most definately the english invasions into north america.

so, no, not every invasion led to slaughtering and decimation. but it is well established that the slavic invasion [or, more accurately the avar invasion] of south-eastern europe really did.

in romania, things are different. we would have had dacians there up until the gothic migrations; the initial roman settlement was not large enough to have had much effect on the original dacian population even if it did survive....but it didn't, the area was, to use a modern term, "ethnically cleansed" by goths, who were attacked by huns [who had little genetic effect on the area because they migrated back out very quickly], who led to a new german dominance, that of gepids [who were decimated by the avars], and then of avars [who had little effect as they kept themselves segregated from their european slaves] and their slavic allies. the model the avars used was to invade a new plot of land, pillage it, loot it, kill the inhabitants and retreat back to the grazing lands; in this process, slavs would fall into the newly opened land and open it for cultivation. that might not sound very nice, and it may offend some avars today, but i don't care; this is the historically known explanation of the slavic/avar migration and can be found in any easily accessible book on slavic history. the original point of expansion was actually *in* the mountains, the carpathians, as it was THE SLAVS who were the mountain dwellers, the ones who had to flee even earlier invasions by goths, east germans, scythians and sarmatians...even early thracians [cimmerians].

Look: we have numerous Slavic words in our language. Somehow, we cohabitated. Your point doesn't make sense, because, even (if not mostly) for the Romance-speakers south of the Danube, the Slavic etc. presence would've been crushing (Bulgarian is ALL-Slavic). I don't think you could say "such-and-such" where "mountain-dwellers", as if predestined and incapable of doing anything else. How come the Avars were around in the plains but now are confined to mountainous Dagestan? And even if I were to believe in these terms, where were the mountains those Slaves came from? On the Vistula? On the Oder? On the Bug? Because it is on those rivers, and not in the Carpathians, that most (if not all) Slavs lived. To say that they were chased by Thracians is just not in tune with historical sources, or woul've had to happen in the Stone Age! I've had to take a class in Romanian Archeology, and this much I remember: all of archeological evidence points so diffusion on a north-south direction. And how could Slavs cultivate and be mountain dwellers at the same time? You come with me to the Carpathians, and we can live off of cultivating the land - we'll be dead in a short while. "Hey Slavs, there's a plain over there!" "No, thanks. We like starving."

it wasn't until the roman empire itself reconquered this area north of the danube that any roman presence existed, and this was most likely the result of the empire expelling vlachs from greece to the outsides of the empire.

And when was that? Constantine? He stayed for a year or so... You doubt that the original Roman presence would have left any traces, on account of brevity, but you're willing to believe that whomever came then stayed.

so, yes, the original romanians [dacians] would have fleed into the mountains, but they never made it out, and those that did it would have been in numbers small enough that they were simply absorbed by the slavic population.

Again, not killed, not absorbed. There are Slavic words in Romanian, there are NO Romanian words in Slavic languages.

there simply were not enough original roman settlers to have maintained a continuity, especially considering that the vast majority of them were removed. christianity may have also had some role to play in the extent of the spread of the language north of the danube, but the vlachs are migratory and we may just as easily assume that they spread out on their own and split off into two major dialects from there.

the short answer is that mitochondrial dna testing has killed the continuity argument. you are genetically related to the people of northern greece.

Fine, I see I have to include such empirical "evidence" into my argument (although, I'd like to see your source). Let me be the devil's advocate: we are not related to them, they are related to us.
It is common knowledge if you live here that sheperds would (and some still do) travel from the Carpathians to the Pindus in the space of one year.

but what actually happened in england is that a small aristocracy politically forced it's way onto a large population, changing it's language by pure accident due to political and economic reasons, and affecting the population very little. genetic testing has concluded the situations are not comparable.

Do you have genetic proof for Hungarians vs. Romanians? I'm willing to bet it is the exact same thing.

i do not take accusations of these sort lightly at all.

Sorry. I just don't feel that physical characteristics are to be applied to peoples, and not humans.

Sorry for my late response, but it was week-end. Many things happen during week-ends. :)
the only assumption is yours.
I was talking about assumptions such as the one about Wallachia. As Argesia has shown, nobody's contesting that Wallachia is a Romanian land. Also, I feel myself compeeled to repeat that you won't find articles about the migration theory in any peer-reviewed western journal. People on the internet are, of course, free to post any info they wnt on their web-sites.


no. the obvious connection is that the old inhabitants (dacians) moved into the mountains when they were not slaughtered, and that the villages were set up by the new inhabitants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians
But the villages I was talking about were appearing around the old cities. If they were abandoned, why would the migrators settle speciffically around them? The only logical conclusion is that the old city-dwellers are moving into the country-side, as the urban life slowly degrades. Also, there's no evidence that the villages from the Roman period were abandoned after the Roman rule ended and then reoccupied by a new population. There's continuos habitation throughout this period.

I was aware about the wiki article, it simply tries to be objective and present both sides of the argument, but I will repeat myself: the western papers don't do that. AFAIK, they only take into account the continuity theory.

Finally, I will quote (from memory) Caesar complaining, in the Ist century BC, that the inhabitants of southern Gaul speak Latin much better than the senators in Rome. That region had been a Roman colony for much less than 200 years, and yet its inhabitants were already Romanized. This tells us that 165 years is plenty of time to change the ethnic make-up of a region.


no it doesn't. there were tons of latin speakers in the north of greece from as far back as justinian. if these people were latinized in northern greece and pushed north of the danube, they would have brought their latin word for oil to the north with them. to accept your argument, we must assume that the latin speakers of the balkans had no word for oil, which is pushing the realms of plausibility.
I feel you don't understand the problem, for the very reason that the English language doesn't have a separate word for oil, as that substance which can be found in the ground. There are two completely different meanings of the word, which in Romanian have two different words designating them, not one:

1) the oil used for cooking - 'ulei' in Romanian (incidentally, it has the same origin as the word 'oil' - the Latin word 'oleum').

2) the oil found in the ground - 'pacura'.

The English language doesn't have a separate word for the second meaning exactly because it evolved in a region without oil deposits. It's perfectly normal that the Romanized population living in the Southern Blakans had a word for cooking oil. But there's absolutely no reason for them to have had a word for the oil found in the ground, because, just like the English, they lived in a region without oil deposits.



i am unaware of this kind of archaeological evidence, but the genetic evidence is unambiguous.

just about every source that spoke of the thracians from the time of homer onwards noted their long, flowing red hair....
Could you please show me the genetic studies showing the Thracians and Illyrians were red haired? Or at least that they differ significantly from the modern inhabitants of the Balkans?


a.a. vasiliev.
Are you taling about the A. A. Vasiliev who wrote 100 years ago?
Notes:

1. See A. A. Vasiliev, "The Origin of Emperor Basil the Macedonian"
Vizantiysky Vremennik. XII (1906), 148-65.
http://faq.macedonia.org/history/mk.dynasty.byzantium.html
If that's the guy you're supporting your statesments on... I mean, you could use some more recent research.

The Serbs started it with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

I thought everybody and his monkey knew that one.

The Serbs started it with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

I thought everybody and his monkey knew that one.
Ah, but Gavrilo Princip was an Austro-Hungarian citizen of Serbian nationality. In the recent London bombings, the terrorists were Pakistani and Egyptian. Has Great Britain declared war on either Pakistan or Egypt?

Has Great Britain declared war on either Pakistan or Egypt?
Would it makes things better for Serbians if Great Britain did declare war on Pakistan and Egypt?

Would it makes things better for Serbians if Great Britain did declare war on Pakistan and Egypt?
Of course not. But things would have been better had Austria-Hungary not declared war on Serbia.