Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Causes of Great War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Because these people think that empirical is the name for the new Macburger.
    Like it !!
    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
    Samuel Johnson.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
      I agree totally. All I'd add is that it's human nature to seek simple explanations, especially ones that deny personal responsibility. In this case admitting one's forebears acted in such a fashion as to bring about general warfare after decades of peace isn't easy, especially when so many young men lost their lives!
      The fact that a number of politicians then deliberately misrepresented both the decision making and their role in it (DLG leaps to mind) in their memoirs and public utterances doesn't help.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
        The fact that a number of politicians then deliberately misrepresented both the decision making and their role in it (DLG leaps to mind) in their memoirs and public utterances doesn't help.
        More so that two of the 'villians' (DLG and WSC) were demagogues of the highest order and were prepared to sacrifice all, including any sense of honour, to further their own ambitions.
        Signing out.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
          Indeed so, As I've posted earlier -somewhere in this forum- there are few more contentious issues, historically, than the precise origins of WW1.

          So all the more reason why the conflict should not be dismissed as merely an inevitable outcome of the early 20th.century European alliance system and its attendant arms "race" (which wasn't really )
          I agree. But the fact remains that WW1 was fought for the usual reasons: territory, hegemony, and trade. That WW1 had a (very) long fuse doesn't change the fact that it was triggered for these very reasons. Europe was divided against itself by the opposing coalitions which arose in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War. This lent to the First World War its unprecedented scope and ferocity.
          "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

          Comment


          • #65
            IMHO,although the importance of the rival alliances can not be denied,one should not give them to much importance,after all,they existed since decennia,without causing a war.

            OTOH,there were wars which were not caused by rival alliances,as the Krim War.

            For WWI,one should not underestimate the importance of Sarajevo,which resulted in one of the great powers (a declining one) in going to war,which resulted in a destabilization of the statu quo,which resulted in the intervention of the other great powers.

            One should also look at the following :the Austrian-Hungarian problem:A-H was declining,and to stop this,it was going to war .
            Was there a peaceful solution for this problem:the survival of a multicultural,ancien régime state,in an epoch shaped by nationalism? IMHO: not,war was inevitable .

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              IMHO,although the importance of the rival alliances can not be denied,one should not give them to much importance,after all,they existed since decennia,without causing a war.
              Indeed. Making a case for their importance in 1914 should involve explaining their unimportance in the previous crises. Or, conversely, explaining how important the alliances were in ensuring that previous crises were resolved peacefully and why they failed in 1914. Otherwise one might as well argue that the war was the result of Archie shooting an ostrich!
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #67
                The alliances meant that a war would not be limited to two countries. So, they are the cause of the WORLD war.

                Comment


                • #68
                  No:the war between 1)Austria/Germany and 2)UK,France,Russia was not a world war,it was a war between European countries.The non European countries joined later.
                  And,notwithstanding what certain people still are claiming,Britain was not a member of the alliances,and,yet,it intervened in the war .
                  The same for Italy,Belgium,Japan,the Ottoman Empire :their involvement in the war was not caused by their membership of an alliance .

                  Between 1871-1879:the two alliances did not exist,and,...there was no war.
                  Between 1879-1893,only the German-Austrian alliance existed,and,still no war;
                  Between 1893-1914,the two alliances existed,and,still no war .

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    No:the war between 1)Austria/Germany and 2)UK,France,Russia was not a world war,it was a war between European countries.The non European countries joined later.
                    And,notwithstanding what certain people still are claiming,Britain was not a member of the alliances,and,yet,it intervened in the war .
                    The same for Italy,Belgium,Japan,the Ottoman Empire :their involvement in the war was not caused by their membership of an alliance .

                    Between 1871-1879:the two alliances did not exist,and,...there was no war.
                    Between 1879-1893,only the German-Austrian alliance existed,and,still no war;
                    Between 1893-1914,the two alliances existed,and,still no war .
                    Some on this forum continue to hide behind the strictly technical circumstance that Grey had not officially signed any treaties. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain was committed to support France just as Lord Esher and others have pointed out. The transformation of the Franco-Russian alliance into the Triple Entente was the main accomplishment of King Edward VII and Lord Grey. Without this, France and Russia would not have rolled the dice against the Central Powers.
                    "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                      Some on this forum continue to hide behind the strictly technical circumstance that Grey had not officially signed any treaties. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain was committed to support France just as Lord Esher and others have pointed out. The transformation of the Franco-Russian alliance into the Triple Entente was the main accomplishment of King Edward VII and Lord Grey. Without this, France and Russia would not have rolled the dice against the Central Powers.
                      Nonsense. If anyone isn't already aware this waffle has been thoroughly rebutted with plenty of evidence to support it on the 'England's 1914 Blank Check' thread.
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                        Nonsense. If anyone isn't already aware this waffle has been thoroughly rebutted with plenty of evidence to support it on the 'England's 1914 Blank Check' thread.

                        So tell me, what is meant by the phrase "Triple Entente?"
                        "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by peterhof View Post
                          So tell me, what is meant by the phrase "Triple Entente?"
                          When you start answering the questions I posed to you on the above mentioned thread you can address me. Until then I once more unclog my nostrils at you!
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Entente is not alliance.If the triple entente was an alliance,it would be called Triple Alliance,as it was not,the Triple Entente was not an alliance .It's that simple.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                              Entente is not alliance.If the triple entente was an alliance,it would be called Triple Alliance,as it was not,the Triple Entente was not an alliance .It's that simple.
                              Your opinion is worthless. These are the opinions that matter: The close collaboration between the French and British General Staffs under the auspices of Sir Henry Wilson since 1906 had created what Lord Landsdowne called “an obligation of honour.” Austin Chamberlain referred to “the closest negotiations and arrangements between two Governments,” while Sir Eyre Crowe termed it “an honourable expectation.” Lord Esher bluntly pointed out to the Prime Minister that the military plans worked out by the British and French General Staffs have “certainly committed us to fight, whether the Cabinet likes it or not.”

                              Any questions?
                              "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                                When you start answering the questions I posed to you on the above mentioned thread you can address me. Until then I once more unclog my nostrils at you!
                                Unclog your nostrils? Yuk! Is this what they do in Essex?
                                "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X