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

[History_Buff]

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...

I utterly despise the way Pakistan has been carrying on for the last few years, but it doesn't make the British responsible. Muslims are not a race of evil super-villains.

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.

This is hilariously inaccurate. Indians were just as prone to war and savagery as were everyone else.

 

[LightSpectra]

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

Dubious logic is dubious, once more. With every attempt is added personal security on part of the Habsburgs. Doing something a whole lot doesn't guarantee it will eventually happen.

 

[Dachs]

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

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, there were several assassination attempts on the life of various Hohenzollern monarchs, including two separate ones on Wilhelm I in the same year (1878). None resulted in a dead emperor.

Attempts on the lives of the crowned heads of Europe - and of key statesmen - were a fact of life during that time. Almost zero of them were successful. I think that says something about the inevitability of one of these Habsburgs getting assassinated, no?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I like the "repeated attempts at terrorism prove it will eventually be successful" theory. It makes such interesting outcomes out of the homerule crisis.

 

[r16]

regarding Sarajevo 1914 , if were we to intently , seriously and gloomily to look into it , would we ever see a notion of Anchluss of 1915 ? If not that at least more control ? Though ı am not ever giving up on the AngloSaxon "farsight" .

 

[RedRalph]

I think people are a bit too hung up on the word 'inevitable'. 'Very, very likely' would, IMO, work better. And if you use those words I think G-Max has a point, but we are really getting into the realm of philosophy there, not history.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem isn't really that G-Max is claiming a particular level of probability, whether it be 1 or 0.999, it's that he seems to be assuming that because the historical circumstances which produced these assassination attempts was superseded by a successful attempt and ensuing war in our timeline, that such a series of events would be a necessary precondition of their supersession in any timeline. Whether or not it is true that the number and frequency of assassination attempts was such that odds were overwhelmingly in favour of success within a certain time period, it does not hold that the political landscape would remain static until a successful assassination attempt occurred. As he describes it, all historical processes were converging on a general European war, rather than simply happening to intersect in such a fashion as to produce that war, as Dachs and Park have argued.

 

[RedRalph]

I see what you mean, but I have to say I do think you gents are being a tad pedantic here. as I red it, he is saying that it was very, very likely that somethign would kick off an approximation of OTL WW1 in Europe in and around that period, which I think is a fair comment to make, though of course we can never know if it was true. If, on the other hand, he really means that at some stage a Serbian would definitely kill a member of the Austria royal family sparking a conflict that essentially pitted Germany, AH and the OE against Russia, France and GB then he is on much shakier ground.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I see what you mean, but I have to say I do think you gents are being a tad pedantic here. as I red it, he is saying that it was very, very likely that somethign would kick off an approximation of OTL WW1 in Europe in and around that period, which I think is a fair comment to make

I think this is the central topic of dispute. We feel that the First World War was, above all else, an outcome of numerous contingent circumstances, almost all of which were caused by chance, and were impermanent.
There's nothing to indicate any real increase in tensions in Europe leading up to the First World War, and to expect things to happen the same way again is beyond credulity.

 

[RedRalph]

I think this is the central topic of dispute. We feel that the First World War was, above all else, an outcome of numerous contingent circumstances, almost all of which were caused by chance, and were impermanent.
There's nothing to indicate any real increase in tensions in Europe leading up to the First World War, and to expect things to happen the same way again is beyond credulity.

See the thing is, to believe that all the events which were purely chance were just a wild convergence that was one-in-a-million, you have to ignore the fact that so many of the decisions that brought us from 28th June to 4th august were calculated, rational decisions taken by men who could have just as easily decided against war. The fact that to a man, the people who made the decisions decided to go to war, suggests that if the trigger hadn't been Princip, it would have been something else.

A war of that magnitude wasn't entered into lightly (even if they didn't realise fully what they were getting into, they knew it would be very ugly), so logically you have to accept there was not a huge amount of resistance to the idea of war, if not a huge appetite for it. In those circumstances, a trigger coming along is pretty likely, in some form or another.

Of course things could have proceeded differently, but the ease in which one guy being shot escalted into a world war suggests plenty of people were willing to take the course of war.

 

[bonefang]

and then there is always the lobbies that force governments to take certain decisions. I saw a movie that claimed that both the world wars was due to the "arms and ammunitions" & "bank" lobbies lobbying for the war. since these parties had the most to gain out of wars.

German Ad that told people not to get on to Lusitiana :

The Sinking of Lusitiana :

The resulting : US entry into war : one such advert

 

[bonefang]

oops irishman here :|

 

[say1988]

and then there is always the lobbies that force governments to take certain decisions. I saw a movie that claimed that both the world wars was due to the "arms and ammunitions" & "bank" lobbies lobbying for the war. since these parties had the most to gain out of wars.

To an extent US entry into WWI was affected by large financial risks whould Britian and France lose. For WWII Germany was using money gained from conquered territories to keep its economy afloat, but to say that that was a cause of the war is probably wrong.

As for the Lusitania, while it had a role in turning public opinion against Germany, it was not the cause of American entry into WWI two years later. There were a number of factors, particularly the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram.

 

[berkut]

well if UK was alowed to block german ports, germany had the right to cut their trade too...

 

[bonefang]

TAs for the Lusitania, while it had a role in turning public opinion against Germany, it was not the cause of American entry into WWI two years later.

Please do enlighten me, eager to learn ...
How ever I do understand that US promised to remain neutral at first, then bloody pushed their way into the war. That is not new as it is for US. Remember the "Presence of WMD in Iraq" as casus belli to attack Iraq, not many year ago ?

There were a number of factors, particularly the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram.

Whats wrong in it ? Diplomacy and Backstabbing goes hand in hand. I am recalling the event that US had aided their now bitter enemies the Talibs against the Russians. Hence by your logic, Russia would have been right to declare war against US ?!?

Here is a situation : a road is under construction, the civic authority notifies everyone not to use the road .. if you drive into the road with the knowledge and face an accident , can you blame the civic authorities ?
----> U- Boat activity and the warning in my previous post...

 

[SnowlyWhite]

Here is a situation : a road is under construction, the civic authority notifies everyone not to use the road .. if you drive into the road with the knowledge and face an accident , can you blame the civic authorities ?
----> U- Boat activity and the warning in my previous post...

here's a situation - I think that no ship should travel around area x because I said so and I sink them indiscriminately. Do you find somethin' wrong?

your argument is pure hypocrisy. You're arguing US was hypocrite in Iraq's case for instance(and they were), yet the germans weren't in ww1. Sinking on suppositions ain't different from attacking on supposition - it's the same action, only on sea. US attacked Iraq on a supposition that was wrong, germany sank Lusitania on a supposition that was wrong.

really, you can't sink neutral ships and then wonder why people get pissed. Contrary to many around here, I think US would've joined the war regardless. But that doesn't change the fact that germans provided more then enough real reasons to push them in even if they didn't want to.

your quoted example and imperial Germany action's in ww1 have about 0 things in common. Thank God, the ocean doesn't belong to anyone... and if you're in the mood for sinking and warn ppl. about it, that doesn't give you the right to do it.

 

[say1988]

Please do enlighten me, eager to learn ...

May 1915 - Sinking of theLusitania
2 years of peace
April 1917 - US declares war

If the sinking of the Lusitania was the reason for US entry they wouldn't have had two years of peace. It had a role, but to say that the sinking of the Lusitania caused American entry is a joke.

Whats wrong in it ? Diplomacy and Backstabbing goes hand in hand

I never said anything about morals.
Those to events were what pushed everything over the edge and caused American entry. Of course without earlier factors including, but not limited to, Allied propaganda about the "Rape of Belgium" and the sinking of the Lusitania turning public opinion against Germany the results may have been different. The extent that credit granted to Britain and France was involved in any decision, I have no idea, and is probably pure speculation.

Hence by your logic, Russia would have been right to declare war against US ?!?

You can make a pretty good cae for it. The US was supplying enemies of a Soviet propped up government, people are arguing that the US should attack Iran for supporting enemies of a US propped up government. None of this stuff is black and white to begin with, hence I try to avoid moral decisions when looking at history.

 

[Dachs]

well if UK was alowed to block german ports, germany had the right to cut their trade too...

Funny note on that. The famous British Q ships, developed to combat commerce raiding in general and the U-boat menace in particular, were staffed by naval officers without a commission until late 1915 and therefore, under international law, would be considered pirates. Typically, the Germans did not even think to bring this up.

Anyway. Fundamental difference between the British blockade and the German counter-blockade is that, while both were manifestly illegal, the British weren't killing the crews of neutral ships to accomplish their blockade.

 

[bonefang]

If any one has gone through that ad, the Germans had clearly mentioned that ..

travellers intending to embark on the atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the water adjacent to the British isles.

it was obviously known that the US was supplying arms and ammunition to the Brits, hence a
valid target.

Yet, as is with US, they chose to sacrifice the some 1000 people so that the country would be ready for another war ...

Another version of the same ad:

Spoiler :

If the sinking of the Lusitania was the reason for US entry they wouldn't have had two years of peace. It had a role, but to say that the sinking of the Lusitania caused American entry is a joke.

Not the main reason, i Agree, but was influential ...
other reason might include :
1. Economic issues: the US had invested over $2.6 billion in the war. If the allied powers lost they weren't ever going to get that money back.
2.Russian revolution: the Russians withdrew from the war because they were having a revolution in their own country. They also signed a peace treaty with Germany. This allowed the US to make it a fight against Communism, and make it a "war for Democracy"

 

[innonimatu]

Anyway. Fundamental difference between the British blockade and the German counter-blockade is that, while both were manifestly illegal, the British weren't killing the crews of neutral ships to accomplish their blockade.

Now that you mention it, how did the british accomplish their blockade regarding neutral ships?