How do you think the world would have evolved if there had not been the World Wars?

[ParkCungHee]

Dammit, and I already used "ah yes, [historical fallacy]...we have dismissed that claim" in another thread a few minutes ago.

Though it's very good to see people either don't read the whole thread, or okay with agreeing with troll posts.

 

[Dachs]

Though it's very good to see people either don't read the whole thread, or okay with agreeing with troll posts.

Yeah, with most people it's a coin flip as to which one of those it is

 

[History_Buff]

Yes it was the partition that i was referring to ... dividing the community along the lines of religion. Anyways, the Empire was all ways known to employ "Divide and Rule" pretty efficiently.

But that wasn't why they partitioned India; instead they did it because the All Muslim League was demanding their own state rather than risk oppression at the hands of a huge Hindu majority. You can argue that proper minority protections could have been created to aid in the creation of a multicultural state, but those were supposed to exist anyway, and both India and Pakistan failed at it.

I have a tough time blaming the post-partition violence on the British either. Pakistan and India were already independent by the time the Radcliffe line was decided, and it was India's and Pakistan's duty to police their populations.

 

[G-Max]

Why?

Apparently, there were quite a lot of Serbs who wanted some royal Austrian blood on their hands. This was not the first assassination attempt.

 

[Dachs]

Apparently, there were quite a lot of Serbs who wanted some royal Austrian blood on their hands. This was not the first assassination attempt.

So, your reasoning, basically, is that:

1. There was more than one assassination attempt on the Habsburg royal family.
2. Therefore, there would continue to be assassination attempts on the Habsburg royal family.
3. At least one of these assassination attempts had to be successful.
4. The Habsburgs would unquestionably have used any such assassination as a casus belli against Serbia.
5. Any war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was guaranteed to become a general European conflict.

That about right?

 

[G-Max]

Aside from the use of words like "unquestionably" and "guaranteed", that's the general idea. Europeans at the time weren't known for settling disputes peacefully.

 

[Dachs]

Aside from the use of words like "unquestionably" and "guaranteed", that's the general idea.

If "inevitable" is being thrown around, you have to have words like "unquestionably" and "guaranteed". Otherwise, it's not inevitable.

 

[G-Max]

When assassination attempts are being made, Europe hasn't seen a major conflagration for a generation or so, and have chowderheads like Wilhelm, Nicolas, and Franz Joseph calling the shots, then yeah, it's only a matter of time before someone does something stupid and all hell breaks loose. The specifics are somewhat less certain, but also less important.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Europeans at the time weren't known for settling disputes peacefully.

Really? Because they were living in the longest peace in European history until post-1945, and the history of the period reads like one peace conference after another.

 

[G-Max]

they were living in the longest peace in European history until post-1945

Not a very high bar...

 

[Tee Kay]

chowderheads like Wilhelm, Nicolas, and Franz Joseph calling the shots

They weren't. Especially not Wilhelm. See Lord Baal's post.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well there you have it folks:
War was innevitable because the European heads of state were European.

 

[LightSpectra]

Sooner or later, someone in Serbia would have assassinated a member of the Austrian royal family. You'd basically have to wipe Wilhelm II from history, thus rearranging the web of alliances in Europe, in order to prevent WWI.

One, as already said, Wilhelm wasn't doing anything to cultivate a general war. Two, dubious logic is dubious? You can only say that Franz Ferdinand's assassination was inevitable because it happened. Remember how many times somebody tried to assassinate Reagan? Was his survival inevitable by the same reasoning?

 

[bonefang]

You mean the partition that was demanded by Indians?
The idea that India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh would have been one big happy family if only the British hadn't forced the partition on them is simply ludicrous.

Brits listened to the demands of only one side : the mozzie faction that broke away.. do recall that this is the same piece of $hit that is creating most of the troubles these days...
the indian subcontinent has always been known for its peace and harmony. We have people from all the religions. When ever Europe or Tibet was in a genocidal rage, people have come over and settled in India. (Parsis, Jews[/I in Western Coast of India, Buddhists in the North-Eastern zone]) Hardly ever pre- 1945 will you see communal riots breaking out... since we are basically peace loving people. it would stayed that way if not for Mr. Jinnah, who wanted a grand prize for himself as well.
I do not know which part of the world you are from, but i pray that you aren't from any part of the sub-continent, else you have some serious catching up to do

Spoiler :

Pakistan and India were already independent by the time the Radcliffe line was decided,

yes you are so true .. it was 2 days later, on 17th Aug. If you would like to put it across in that way, then yes, a country is supposed to provide all the luxuries 48 hours after it got its independence.

 

[Dachs]

Well there you have it folks:
War was innevitable because the European heads of state were European.

clearly the solution must be to make all Europeans American

 

[bonefang]

there are a lot of history buffs in here, and since this was about world wars, i was wondering,

what would have happened if Germany had not attacked Russia ? would the world be the same then ??

 

[Dachs]

there are a lot of history buffs in here, and since this was about world wars, i was wondering,

what would have happened if Germany had not attacked Russia ? would the world be the same then ??

In what war?

 

[Traitorfish]

the indian subcontinent has always been known for its peace and harmony.

Hadn't the Muslims and Hindus been killing each other centuries by the time the Brits turned up? Or was stuff like that "Maratha-Mughal War of Twenty Seven Years" thing all in good fun, and the the over-serious British just grossly misinterpreted it as something mean-spirited?

 

[Dachs]

hell, there was more than enough killing going on without dividing groups into monolithic hindu and muslim blocs

although if we want to describe all of indian history in an anachronistic holy-war paradigm we should totally start with pusyamitra sunga's alleged war against all things buddhist

 

[G-Max]

They weren't. Especially not Wilhelm. See Lord Baal's post.

Which one? I don't feel like digging through 6 pages of posts right now.

You can only say that Franz Ferdinand's assassination was inevitable because it happened.

Actually, I'm saying that an assassination of someone in the family was inevitable because repeated attempts kept happening.

Remember how many times somebody tried to assassinate Reagan?

Nope, I only remember the one guy who was obsessed with the 14-year-old hooker from Taxi Driver. However, Reagan eventually left office after 8 years. Royal families tend to stick around a bit longer than that.

clearly the solution must be to make all Europeans American

Sounds good to me!