Causes for 1st World War - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By fuser
#14509206
Exactly.

Plus Russian expansion was not supposed to be unidirectional, you can expand in more than one direction, it was not like, "okay guys we got checked in east, let's look for other direction".

All European Imperial powers were ready to grab as much as they could and wherever they could, trying to put the entire blame on one nation is ridiculous, commies got ww1 exactly right, it was a war born out of imperialism, pro Serbian terrorist activities in AH empire was a trigger not cause.
By Rich
#14509219
Potemkin wrote:He was referring to the Russian Revolution of 1905, which the Tsarist regime only survived by the skin of its teeth. The fact that you seem to be unaware of the existence of this event suggests that your knowledge of the history of this period may be woefully deficient.
These sort of posts deserve an award for the tireless patent education of the ignorant.

The Russian revolution of 1905 was partially triggered by the military debacles of 1904. What Groves seems to be arguing is that despite these Japan had little hope of military victory and it was the 1905 Revolution that forced the Russian government to sue for peace.

fuser wrote:commies got ww1 exactly right, it was a war born out of imperialism, pro Serbian terrorist activities in AH empire was a trigger not cause.
This most certainly is not exactly right. in fact it is a wicked distortion. The war was not born out of Austro-Hungarian, German or French imperialism. The Russians certainly backed Serbia as part of their drive to control and even annex the Straits. That was certainly imperialism. Britain entered the war in order to protect its colonial empire by cuddling up to France and Russia.

But Germany and Austria fought because their cause was incontrovertibly right. Serbia and France both fought for ethnic nationalist expansionism, nothing to do with colonial empire. This was Blut und Boden nationalism: pure and simple.
User avatar
By fuser
#14509223
But Germany and Austria fought because their cause was incontrovertibly right.


their cause was right, lol.

War didn't happened because of a single assassination, Europe was already divided into competing military blocks and going through an arms race exactly because of their conflicting imperial interests.

Moreover AH didn't belong in Balkans any more than Russians did, don't forget that Serbia was even ready to accept all points in AH's ultimatum except for one but it was not good enough for "self righteous" Austrians, I guess. Sergey Sazonov and Nicholas II are on record telling Serbia to accept all the demands (mostly because they thought they were not prepared militarily at the moment to take on Germans), so your simplistic narrative of side "A" evil and side "B" good is complete bs.

Your germanophilia is amusing but your history as always is incorrect.
By Rich
#14509233
fuser wrote:don't forget that Serbia was even ready to accept all points in AH's ultimatum except for one but it was not good enough for "self righteous" Austrians,
Self Righteous Austria? The Serbian state carried out an act of war against Austria, the fact the Prime minster of Serbia was not informed is irrelevant. In fact it was not just an act of war, but a war crime, as deliberate assassination of leaders outside of the battle field was forbidden by well established convention even during war. The Serbian security apparatus was totally out of control. An Austrian occupation was the only hope of bring all the perpetrators to justice and cleansing the Serbian state apparatus of So called terrorists. All decent minded moderate Serbians would have welcomed an occupation as a liberation from the tyranny of their own state security apparatus. The occupation would have been restrained and moderate. There would been no years of slave labour and Eisenhower death camps like in the allied occupation of Germany after World War II.

An absolute minimum compliance would be the conviction and hanging of Apis for murder on Serbian soil. He of course should not have been taken to Austria because Liberal Austria had abolished the death penalty, unlike Serbia, France, Russia and Britain.
Last edited by Rich on 10 Jan 2015 16:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By fuser
#14509237
The Serbian state carried out an act of war against Austria,


No, by any definition.

the fact the Prime minster of Serbia was not informed is irrelevant


No, it is important, the mere fact that it doesn't suit your stance is not good enough reason to make it irrelevant.

The Serbian security apparatus was totally out of control. An Austrian occupation was the only hope of bring all the perpetrators to justice and cleasning the Serbian state apparatus of So called terrorists. All decent minded moderate Serbians would have welcomed an occupation as a liberation from the tyranny of their own state security apparatus.


Petty opinions are not historical facts.

An absolute minimum compliance would be the conviction and hanging of Apis for murder on Serbian soil. He of course should not have been taken to Austria because Liberal Austria had abolished the death penalty, unlike Serbia, France, Russia and Britain.


Irrelevant.

The occupation would have been restrained and moderate.


Irrelevant.

There would been no years of slave labour and Eisenhower death camps like in the allied occupation of Germany after World War II.


Irrelevant

Right, so now that you can't argue historical facts, you are trying to pretend that you still have something to argue by posting unsubstantiated petty opinions. Anyhow, irrelevant to my point.

You can very much copy and paste, "Yay Germany" and "Boo Hoo allies" 50 times and it would be as good as this post of yours.
#14509246
Potemkin wrote:The fact that you seem to be unaware of the existence of this event suggests that your knowledge of the history of this period may be woefully deficient.

Perhaps you are not entirely wrong about this one. The Russian revolution is more in your line.

Anyways, having now read up on the 1905 revolution, it appears that the causality Groves tried to establish between the 1905 revolution and the defeat against the Japanese isn't necessarily correct (as pointed out by Rich). It seems that the defeat of the Russians at Port Harbor sparked massive discontent with the regime in Russia which exacerbated protests that were already underway.

On a different issue, here is a passage I came across just now which highlights that other alliances could have been possible (as I pointed out above). According to Uwe Lisckowski who writes about Russian foreign policy 1905-1914:

"When the Bosnian annexation was discussed in the Duma in 1909, the conservative United Nobility Party argued that the annexation had in no way damaged Russian interests or security and that Russia should adopt a policy of non-interference in the Balkans, while seeking reconciliation with Berlin. The real enemy, they argued, was Britain, which was trying to push Russia into a war with Germany in order to consolidate British control of world markets. Against this position, the pro-French and pro-British liberals of the Constitutional Democrat Party called for the transformation of the Triple Entente into a Triple Alliance that would enable Russia to project power in the Balkans and arrest the decline of its great power status."

Funny how the Russians are still hung up about their "great power status" 100 years later.
#14509254
Perhaps you are not entirely wrong about this one. The Russian revolution is more in your line.

So is basic historical knowledge, it seems.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Tell it to all the "it's all the same" […]

Muscovites always seem to get offended by the […]

Kiev fell apart, so they moved to Moscow , which […]

https://twitter.com/iamdenya_de/status/17700095631[…]