WWI [Help and Debate]

2009-01-12 21:03:53

#1

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6647|California

Debate:

Who do you think is to blame for WWI. We all know Germany *officially* was blamed by the (then new) League of Nations/UN/whatever-you-want-to-call-it-for-future-reference. But who do you think should have taken the blame/caused it. Also add why.

Help:

I'm trying to make a basic map explaining the basic relations of treaties/order of entrance into the war because of who to help some people who need it. I'm gonna try to make one so any suggestions for improvement would be handy when I put it up or if someone wants to Google a map of the area and make a quick (but clean) version.

https://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z290/EskimoChief/Europe1914.jpg

Map wrote:
A slight description of the map:

Double arrows going to France from German + the one from Germany to Russia is the Schlieffen Plan (spelling check needed)
USA arrow wasn't the Ally or Central Power color because it entered the war so late
Blue countries are obviously neutral (legend)
Austria-Hungary arrow to Serbia is war declaration

Chronological Order:
(Sarajevo Assassination) Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia
Russia (mainly Serbian) moves towards Austria-Hungary (and Germany as well as Austria and Germany were allied)
Germany and France tensions rise
Schlieffen Plan (Germany to France through Belgium and Switzerland then Russia)
France and Germany fight of Western Front/Germany and Russia fight on Western Front; Russia also fights Austria-Hungary
Britain joins on side of Allies
Italy, despite its Triple Alliance Treaty with Central Powers join the Allies
USA joins
Armistice near France

My argument:

Probably Austria-Hungary should have been blamed/started the who situation because they were simply waiting for an excuse or a slip-up from Serbia and the Assassination of Sarajevo was an easy excuse for them to declare war. This lead to Russia (majority Serbs) stepping in < Germany stepping in because of The Triple Alliance < France stepping in with Russia because of Triple Entente < Britain; same reason < US because of Germans etc etc.

Go

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-01-12 22:51:14)

2009-01-12 21:12:18

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

Both Britain and Germany were building a larger fleet of battleships well before the nations formed alliances and they knew war would eventuate. It was Empire building which had reached a critical point in time. Africa was steadily being divided up by the main powers and tensions were already high in Europe.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.anzacs.net/PreludeWar.htm

2009-01-12 21:21:06

#3

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6715|'Murka

It's not so simple as looking at the individual protangonists of the war. Just as it's not so simple as looking strictly at 30's-era Germany to find the root cause of WW2.

There are multiple historical theories about the root causes (vice proximate causes) of WW1.

wiki wrote:
The causes of the war can be traced to the unification of Germany in 1871,[citation needed] and the uneasy balance of power among the European Great Powers in the opening years of the 20th century. Additional spurs to conflict included continuing French resentment over the loss of territory to Germany in the 19th century; growing economic, military and colonial competition between Britain and Germany; and the continuing instability of Austro-Hungarian rule in the Balkans.

The proximate trigger for the war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of the heir as a Bosnian Serb succeeded in the to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria-Hungary's demands for revenge against the Kingdom of Serbia led to the activation of a series of alliances which within weeks saw most European powers at war. Because of the global empires of many European nations, the war soon spread worldwide.

Yes, it's from wikipedia, but it seems to jibe with other texts I've read on the issue, which links the root causes of WW1 to the Napoleanic Wars of the late 1800's...similar to the Versailles Treaty being considered one of the root causes of WW2 (or at least German nationalism, leading to the rise of the Nazis).

I recommend the two-book series "What If?". It does a fairly good job of breaking down the historical root causes of the rifts (and treaties) within Europe which allowed a single assassination to ignite a continent-wide conflict.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-01-12 21:23:33)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-12 21:59:42

#4

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6647|California

The (official) causes of war are, I believe:

Militarism
Imperialism
Nationalism
Economic expansion

Not as official:

Rising tensions between countries
Competition for colonies
Etc

Many of those countries were militarizing, competing and, in the Balkans, things were very tense.

At FEOS, I'm looking for your opinions on the causes/responsibility. Not wikipedias. I know the theories and official blaming etc but I'm curious as to personal views.

EDIT: Here's another topic (since you mentioned the "What if?") - What if Mexico had attacked the US as Germany had requested them to?

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-01-12 22:01:42)

2009-01-12 22:03:17

#5

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6715|'Murka

xBlackPantherx wrote:
The (official) causes of war are, I believe:

Militarism
Imperialism
Nationalism
Economic expansion
Not as official:
Rising tensions between countries
Competition for colonies
Etc

Many of those countries were militarizing, competing and, in the Balkans, things were very tense.

At FEOS, I'm looking for your opinions on the causes/responsibility. Not wikipedias. I know the theories and official blaming etc but I'm curious as to personal views.

I thought you were looking for sources on causes that dug a bit deeper than the assassination of the Archduke. I tried to offer you that. I even clearly explained where to look and offered a link to the books. I provided the wiki link (and even caveated it) simply to show that the issue goes back further than the assassination most linked to the start of the war. An interesting road to go down is the linkage to the Napoleanic Wars...which I thought I made fairly clear.

Sorry that wasn't good enough...I'll be sure not to help the next time you ask.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-01-12 22:36:49

#6

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6647|California

FEOS wrote:
xBlackPantherx wrote:
The (official) causes of war are, I believe:

Militarism
Imperialism
Nationalism
Economic expansion
Not as official:
Rising tensions between countries
Competition for colonies
Etc

Many of those countries were militarizing, competing and, in the Balkans, things were very tense.

At FEOS, I'm looking for your opinions on the causes/responsibility. Not wikipedias. I know the theories and official blaming etc but I'm curious as to personal views.
I thought you were looking for sources on causes that dug a bit deeper than the assassination of the Archduke. I tried to offer you that. I even clearly explained where to look and offered a link to the books. I provided the wiki link (and even caveated it) simply to show that the issue goes back further than the assassination most linked to the start of the war. An interesting road to go down is the linkage to the Napoleanic Wars...which I thought I made fairly clear.

Sorry that wasn't good enough...I'll be sure not to help the next time you ask.

Oh, I was multitasking. I guess I didn't get the meaning in the spur.

Btw, added the map. Any suggestions?

2009-01-12 22:46:36

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

Reckon thats several years work and a 200,000 word essay TBH.

Or 'That archduke got shot'

Fuck Israel

2009-01-12 22:55:03

#8

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6647|California

Dilbert_X wrote:
Reckon thats several years work and a 200,000 word essay TBH.

Or 'That archduke got shot'

Essentially, either that or a test the week before semester finals

I'm actually not to bad on the subject, the map is for some friends. I'm actually going to make a thread on some difficult chemistry subjects I do need help on. I figure out of everyone here someone has to be able to help with it considering the entire second semester is based upon these topics.

EDIT: Added map 'walk-through' (I suppose) underneath map.

Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2009-01-12 22:56:22)

2009-01-13 03:10:04

#9

zeidmaan: Member; +234|6719|Vienna

I want to point out a mistake.
2 times when you mention Russians you state "Majority Serbs". Im not sure what you mean exactly. If you are trying to say that the majority of people living in Russia at that time were emigrants from Serbia than that's not true. Russia was populated by, well, Russians.

They were alias though.

2009-01-13 03:47:35

#10

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7114|Nårvei

Dilbert_X wrote:
Reckon thats several years work and a 200,000 word essay TBH.

Or 'That archduke got shot'

The archduke got shot was just an excuse, the underlying reasons are much more diverse ... there is a book i read on the subject but i can't remember the title or author, will post it if i can recollect any details about it ... been so long since i read it ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-01-13 03:56:32

#11

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

Varegg wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Reckon thats several years work and a 200,000 word essay TBH.

Or 'That archduke got shot'
The archduke got shot was just an excuse, the underlying reasons are much more diverse ... there is a book i read on the subject but i can't remember the title or author, will post it if i can recollect any details about it ... been so long since i read it ...

2009-01-13 04:46:20

#12

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6303|...

more or less the french wanted revenge for losing Elzas/Lotharingen, but I blame them for WW2, not so much for WW1

WW1, was an insanely poor turn of events, the assassination of the crown prince of austria was unlucky as hell (imo), but expected. It's only natural the russians chose to ally with the french here.

Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-13 04:46:45)

inane little opines

2009-01-13 07:22:18

#13

Bradt3hleader: Care [ ] - Don't care [x]; +121|6240

Imagine being the guy who shot the archduke and know you were used to cause a war that killed millions of people, because you had to pull the trigger at that moment of history. Sucks TBH...bastard...

2009-01-13 13:24:40

#14

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6772

2009-01-13 16:26:10

#15

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6410|eXtreme to the maX

Varegg wrote:
The archduke got shot was just an excuse, the underlying reasons are much more diverse ... there is a book i read on the subject but i can't remember the title or author, will post it if i can recollect any details about it ... been so long since i read it ...

That was pretty much my point.

Fuck Israel

2009-01-13 17:27:33

#16

xBlackPantherx: Grow up, or die; +142|6647|California

zeidmaan wrote:
I want to point out a mistake.
2 times when you mention Russians you state "Majority Serbs". Im not sure what you mean exactly. If you are trying to say that the majority of people living in Russia at that time were emigrants from Serbia than that's not true. Russia was populated by, well, Russians.

They were alias though.

I meant Slavic. Not Serbian. Serbians were Slavic and so were Russians. Got my vocab mixed up.

BF2S Forums WWI [Help and Debate]

Map wrote:

wiki wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

FEOS wrote:

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Varegg wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

Board footer