Causes for 1st World War - Page 3 - 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.
#14430642
Well, Germany and the UK were huge trading partners before WWI.
Probably not nearly to the same extent, since you know the disruption of their trade by war didn't cause the immediate economic collapse in both countries, as would very likely happen in China and to some extent the US if suddenly there's a war between the two. Also I think Germany and UK were really competitors economically more than anything, they were both for example net coal exporters on the world market. China and the US complement each other economically in many ways. At least for now.

The whole question of colonies and living room etc were psychological rather than real.
Why do you think that, could you elaborate? I've explained why I think they mattered.
#14430647
With the growing urbanisation Germany could easily support her growing population. There was no problem of lack of living space. Nor was the Germany economy in any way constrained for a lack of raw materials, the german industry produced plenty of industrial products for trade, and easily covered the importation of raw materials.

Some of them thought they needed colonies but in actual fact they were quite wrong.
#14430656
So, all the European (not just German) ministers, political scientists, industrialists, and politicians were wrong, and you are right? Not that it's impossible, but you have to admit, that's not exactly a very believable premise. Nobody in Europe seriously thought that "colonies are economically useless", or "for prestige only".

Anyway regarding the raw materials, like I believe I said in my long post - the issue is NOT the lack of raw materials or export markets, so you're not really addressing what I said. Yes, Germany could probably continue to grow its economy even without having a proper colonial empire, that's not really the issue. The issue is that, first, it would put Germany at a constant disadvantage of having to deal with tariffs imposed by the other colonial powers. In other words, compared to the established colonial powers, Germany would always be economically handicapped. It would also put it in a position of dependence on the good will of those same empires, because they could easily strangle the German economy by simply refusing to trade with it. So, if Germany could swallow its pride, it could survive under those conditions, but it would require for it to essentially agree to be everyone's bitch.

If you are ever placed in that sort of situation, pugsville, I would like to see how happy you'll be with it. Say, I'm the boss of your company, and since you are my newest employee, I'm going to go ahead and force you to work harder than everyone else for the same pay, furthermore if anyone of my other employees ever has a slightest complaint about you no matter how irrational - you're fired. The reverses does not apply of course, if you complain about them I'll just laugh you off. Anyway, these are the conditions of your employment. Are you happy with your new workplace? Welcome to the team.

I hope you understand what I'm saying now.

Regarding the overpopulation, you're just asserting that it wasn't an issue but do you have any evidence to back that up? Again it's strange, because all the leading German thinkers seemed to think that it was. The plans for ethnic cleansing and German settlement in Poland and Lithuania in WW1 were debated and developed across a wide spectrum of political parties and interested groups, and approved by the highest officials of the German government with full support of the Prussian parliament. Remember though, that overpopulation doesn't mean that you can't physically fit more people on a given piece of land. You can, but it will have adverse social, economic, and environmental consequences. Would you like to move to Bangladesh, experience it for yourself by any chance? With Germany, the issue was once again in the perceived unfairness when compared to the established colonial powers. The Britons had less population on the Isles, yet if they ever felt like there wasn't enough good real estate around, they could always settle somewhere in, say, Canada, without actually leaving their home country. Privilege! Germans didn't have that, really, other than a few backwater colonies in Central Africa completely unsuitable for the Europeans to live in, they had nothing, so if a German ever feels like there isn't enough good real estate in Germany - he has to beg for acceptance in a foreign country.
#14430751
It's called hindsight. Many widely held beliefs turn out to be wrong and it donest take much to see that many years later.

What Tariffs? It was a very free trade era. Germany was in no way being strangled economically. It has access to raw materials and markets for it's products. It was economically booming in general. Provide concrete examples of Germany being economically disadvantaged before ww1?

Colonies , there were very few colonies that had known good raw material resources. Very few colonies had valuable resources at the time.

As for European immigration, there was little begging involved. European migrants from all countries were accepted pretty much in almost all colonies. Many many Germans chose to immigrate during this period, they did not generally have a problem. There was not a shortage of land in Germany, there was large scale urbanization going on, Germany had to import farm laborers.

Unfairness. Really did the Germans have any real plan to pursue political policies on the basis of fairness? They were going to grant independence to their part of Poland? It was going to submit Alsace-Lorraine or Schwig-Holstein to some sort of international conference were things would be decided by justice and fairness to all concerned?
#14430788
What Tariffs?
That's a little bewildering. What, you don't think there were tariffs prior to World War 1? You can't seriously think that.

There ... definitely were tariffs. Here's some paper that discusses them.
http://www.ceres-uy.org/analisis/semina ... iamson.pdf

More than that, according to the paper "There is plenty of evidence of rising world protection before World War I (the unweighted average in the full sample rising from about 12% in 1865 to about 17% in 1910)". Generally to my knowledge the tariffs started rising way before WW1, in around 1879 as a response to the "Long Depression". Most countries responded by spiking up their tariff rates to one degree or another, and I've heard this actually mentioned as one of the causes for the "New Imperialism" and the "Scramble for Africa", because the higher tariff rates made it really bad for a country to miss out on colonial expansion.

If you don't have colonies but others do, then any tariff by them is bad for you - high or low, because it will put you at a disadvantage compared to them. But even if tariffs are 0%, there's still the issue of losing your effective independence by being forced to rely on other countries good will for your country's economic development.

I could have sworn that I've even seen a quote by one of the former US presidents saying that tariffs were the main cause of World War 1. (Or was it World War 2?) And you're telling me they didn't exist.

Very few colonies had valuable resources at the time.
How about copper, cobalt, rubber, diamond, gold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_C ... mic_policy

Also the economic value of colonies for the colonial power is not just in the raw materials located on their territory, but also in the cheap labor force, and in the export markets. You can't just just neglect the latter two, they're very important. Then there's the strategic and military value, but let's not even go there.

There was not a shortage of land in Germany
Link to some evidence? You understand I'm not going to be convinced by you just asserting it, right? Germany in 1910 definitely was one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, and there was a consensus of sorts that this was a problem and a risk. I mean I could start quoting Friedrich Ratzel or something, but if there's someone who has proven that he's full of shit - I'll listen.

Unfairness. Really did the Germans have any real plan to pursue political policies on the basis of fairness? They were going to grant independence to their part of Poland? It was going to submit Alsace-Lorraine or Schwig-Holstein to some sort of international conference were things would be decided by justice and fairness to all concerned?
The hell.. What does that have to do with... anything? Do you really not understand what I'm saying? If there's some misunderstanding please let me know.
#14430891
Bismark thought colonies were rubbish, while there were people and groups were widespread views similar to what you are expressing, a lot of them were fringe groups on no influence. Sure Hitler and Kaiser ranted about this stuff, but they were not very bright men.

Trade tariffs were generally pretty low, British trade tariffs were very low in the period and in terms of world trade it is the most important. Most tariffs in Britain were about revenue raising like the tariff on tea, rather than protectionism. The 1930s and the lead up to ww2 was a period of massive tariffs. (there was a depression and a collapse of world trade, high tariffs, no credit etc)

German population continued to grow and the population was easily accommodated in the Borders of Germany. There was massive on going shift to cities. The historical growth of the German population after 1914 just proves this point is Rubbish,

Unfairness, German protests that it was unfair that they didnt have colonies are rubbish. The Germans are not implementing their foreign policy on the basis of fairness, it's a ludicrous concept to apply to Imperialism and colonies. What they should be all putin a pool and allocated on the basis of fairness? (ignoring the rights of their populations) It just a factof life that some Nations are large and some are small some have various resources and some dont. That German was entitled to more land, colonies and resources on the basis of fairness is rubbish.

I repeat what economic problems did Germany suffer from being unable to get resources or access to Markets?
#14431169
pugsville wrote:I repeat what economic problems did Germany suffer from being unable to get resources or access to Markets?

It's not about any one particular resource. It's about controlling international trade and access to resources. As a major industrial country, Germany had to make sure that it had access to both. Having only united in the 19th century, most of the choice pieces had already gone, and the British and French squashed all attempts by Germany to get a modest foothold in the colonies.

In 1897, the German ambassador to London was told by the undersecretary at the British Foreign Office, Sir Francis Bertie:

"Should the Germans lay so much as a finger on Transvaal, the British government would not stop at any step, 'even the ultimate' (i.e. war) to repel any German intervention. Should it come to war with Germany, the entire English nation would be behind it, and a blockade of Hamburg and Bremen and the annihilation of German commerce on the high seas would be child's play for the English fleet."

Knowing that the Anglos have used trade sanctions as a preferred means for crippling non-compliant nations for centuries, it is clear that these words are by no means an empty threat.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that the decision to go to war in 1914 was a mistake, but the decision makers at the time did not enjoy our hindsight. They could not possible have imagined either that Germany would one day prosper as a US vassal state.

Perhaps the British would have lost their empire anyways, but the wars certainly hastened the demise. Would the British have fared better if they had let the Germans have a share of the cake? It is futile to speculate. What is important is to learn from the mistakes of the past and not to repeat the same mistakes with regard to China in the future.
#14431239
It was the British Empire any German attempt to take territory from teh British Empire would indeed be an act of war. Why shouldn't the British Empire defend itself? how is the Idea than British would defend their Empire from aggression some sort of bombshell that Germany was badly treated?

The Idea that some Nations are lacking resources in their national territory are somehow entitled to a redistribution of Territory to give it to them is incredibly stupid. Is Germany proposing that all national borders to redrawn to give equal access to resources?

If you accept colonial empires at all how do the Germans have any case at all?(and you would have to say the German should have colonies). The Poles, the Danes incorporated into the German Empire could appeal to this German 'fairness' and get what?

The German whinging about colonies was pathetic and stupid. They were not proposing some idealistic redrawing of national borders and colonies by some universal justice and fairness standard. Some Nations had colonies, some had more resources. If the British were to say to Germany that they didnt have as much farmland as many other nations in Europe and that they were entitled to say most of North Western Germany as compensation what would the German response have been? The French lacked the deposits of coal and the Saar would be just compensation?

?
#14431283
pugsville wrote:It was the British Empire ...

No, Transvaal wasn't the British Empire. The Germans were simply sounding out the possibility of taking colonial territories that hadn't been claimed by anyone - mostly at the interior of the African continent. This was a time, where one colonial power would say to the other, "I won't oppose you occupying Morocco if you don't oppose my occupying Egypt, for example."

But I have to thank you anyways for having inadvertently provided the answer to this thread. It is the arrogance of the British, 100 years ago as today, that is at tthe root of the problem. Why do you suppose that the British had the right to rule the World, while others where "incredibly stupid" to seek a modest share of the cake? Why do you think you have a birthright to destroy one country after the other until the present day?
By Rich
#14431344
pugsville wrote:The German whinging about colonies was pathetic and stupid.
Indeed, the Germans blew it through peacemongering, respect for so called international law and a lack of aggression. First off Germany should have taken French North Africa in the 1871 peace. This would have set them up far better for the scramble for Africa. After 1871 they should have looked to go to war while France was down. The Great power monarchical system was inherently unstable. German had to use every opportunity to expand their power and security or risk being torn apart by the Liberal vultures. That Germany came so close to victory against such a constellation of powers: Britain, France, Russia and the USA a non belligerent ally from the start shows what Germany could achieved if her leaders hadn't suffered from such reckless timidity and had gone to war earlier. We would probably be using German on this forum.
#14431607
First off Germany should have taken French North Africa in the 1871 peace.
Yeah somehow I don't think that would have gone over too well, not only with the French who could choose to continue the war indefinitely - even if it meant waging it from exile, but also with the British and even the Russians who could choose to support them if Germany seemed to be getting too aggressive. That's not even counting the Austrians and Danes who at this point were both still hoping to avenge their respective defeats to Prussia.

There are reasons for exercising restraint in peace negotiations. I'm sure that if the Germans thought that they could get away with grabbing more French territory in the negotiations - they would have, but the risks of doing so would have probably been too great.

After 1871 they should have looked to go to war while France was down.
Yeah that's like saying the Americans should have crushed Russia while it was down in 1990s, or the French should have crushed Germany while it was down in 1920s. In all cases there are good reasons why this didn't happen, mostly same reasons as the ones I mentioned above - not knowing when to stop and aggressively pushing your luck can alienate all your friends, make lots of enemies, and exhaust your own resources. Just because your opponent seems weak, doesn't necessarily mean you can go ahead and attack him and get away with it.

The very fact that the European powers even allowed Germany to come into existence in the first place is a sort of miracle in itself. Prussia was thus able to pick and crush its opponents one by one while the rest of Europe stood by and watched. This couldn't happen if its leadership acted too aggressively.
By Rich
#14431697
First off Germany should have taken French North Africa in the 1871 peace.
pikachu wrote:Yeah somehow I don't think that would have gone over too well, not only with the French who could choose to continue the war indefinitely - even if it meant waging it from exile, but also with the British and even the Russians who could choose to support them if Germany seemed to be getting too aggressive. That's not even counting the Austrians and Danes who at this point were both still hoping to avenge their respective defeats to Prussia.
This is a fair point and we are looking with hindsight. With hindsight we can say if Germany had sat tight in 1914, essentially abandoned Austria, just allowed itself to be humiliated in 1914 and any future conflicts they would probably have got to retain their territory into the modern era. Russia and Austro Hungary would probably have broken up at some point and they might even get to Anschluss with Austria.

However if they wanted to avoid the catastrophe of 1914 they needed to take more risks earlier in order to expand their power and reduce the power of their aggressive neighbours: the French, the Russians, Italy, Britain and the Serbs. The actions of the allies in 1914 were outrageous. They had a celebratory party in Russia's Serbian embassy when they heard the news of the murder of the Arch Duke and his wife.I mean just imagine if Milosovich had backed terrorists to murder Prince Charles and Diana in cold blood is anyone telling me that Briton's even in this pacifist age wouldn't have been screeching for blood. The allies used every propaganda trick they could think of to twist Germany's reasonable, measured and by the standards of the Great Powers entirely righteous response,into some sort of act of aggression. Austro-Hungary was a multicultural Constitutional Democratic State. They couldn't just go to war on the Emperors whim. But the allies even used the inevitable delay in Austria's response as a reason to blame Germany for aggression: astounding.

Of course Germany was a Monarchical, racist, expansionist, sexist, homophobic power the same as Britain, France, Belgium, Russia and the United States. Of course they didn't play fair by the standards of gay marriage 2014 Britain. But by the standards of the Great powers of the time. Germany was wholly in the right and the allies, including the United Sates which was in reality a non belligerent ally from the start, were wholly in the wrong.
#14432030
Well I don't have a crystal ball that can tell me what would have happened if Germany chose to act more aggressively from the start, but my gut feeling is that the tragedy of 1914 would have still happened, except it would happen sooner and Germany would be less prepared for it.

They couldn't just go to war on the Emperors whim. But the allies even used the inevitable delay in Austria's response as a reason to blame Germany for aggression: astounding.
But Austria did want to know whether or not Germany stood by its side, and if Germany didn't - Austria would have almost certainly not gone to war after all.

In fact if wiki isn't lying, the German chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg laid a hand in pushing Austria to war, he deliberately modified the British message to Austria without the Kaiser's knowledge in such a way as to help provoke war. Then the Kaiser was like "wtf bro why did you do that?" Poor Hollweg, he just thought he was following Bismarck's example.
#14506504
http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2 ... -world-war

How has Bismarck escaped most of the blame for the first world war?
As we leave the centenary year of the war’s outbreak, one major culprit seems to have been conspicuous by his absence
Share 2745


inShare
53
Email
Otto von Bismarck
Otto von Bismarck, Prussian chief minister and later first German chancellor. Photograph: Interfoto Pressebildagentur/Alamy
Before we leave the centenary year of the outbreak of war in 1914 there’s someone we should talk about. Everyone now knows about the famous Christmas truce and football matches. But this was a war that was meant to have been “over by Christmas” 1914, not dragging on for four blood-soaked years. Plenty share blame for that, but one major culprit who seems to have been conspicuous by his absence in 2014 deserves a name check: Otto von Bismarck.

I’m astonished by this. Cynical and brilliant, an empire-builder who proclaimed the supremacy of “iron and blood” – actually it was his friend, Alfred (“Cannon King”) Krupp’s new guns made of steel that shed the blood – the Prussian chief minister turned first pan-German chancellor became the dominant European statesman of the 19th century, a near contemporary of Abraham Lincoln, a better man with a better legacy (and much better jokes).

Unlike the gentle 16th US president (1861-65) the highly aggressive Bismarck was far from a reluctant war-maker. In power from 1862 to 1890 he engineered three short wars – they’re where the word “blitzkrieg” comes from – against Denmark (1863), Austria (1866) and France (1870) to turn Prussia into the Second Reich (1871-1918) – the first had been medieval – and fatally undermined Germany’s fragile liberal institutions at a critical stage of their evolution.

What Germans got instead was a militarised monarchical autocracy sustained by rampant nationalism and supported by intellectuals of all kinds – sociologist Max Weber later repented his enthusiasm – who should have known better. Parliament was marginalised, the parties manipulated against each other, and Bismarck threatened to resign whenever he was seriously challenged. It was outrageous and it ended in the ruins of Berlin of 1945.

Yes, Bismarck spent the last 20 years of his career protecting the peace in Europe before the idiot new Kaiser, Wilhelm II, sacked him (Punch’s cartoonist famously portrayed it as “Dropping the Pilot”). But the damage was done. Bismarck had built a racing car only he could drive.

This kind of behaviour always matters because there are usually talented politicians around who see military adventurism and democratic corner-cutting as a tempting path to domestic ascendancy and wider prestige. Vladimir Putin seems to be ticking some boxes – witness this week’s intimidatory conviction of a promising opponent – but there are others in sight. Close to home Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan strikes me as a clever man with a dangerous lack of scruple. And, before anyone mentions Margaret Thatcher, she was usually rather cautious and sensitive to parliament, more so than Tony Blair was, I am sorry to say.

After its humiliations at the hands of Napoleon, 19th century Prussia’s was – even more than under Frederick the Great – a conscious process of self-aggrandisement. Plenty resisted the trend and Bismarck’s “iron and blood” exposition of his realpolitik ambitions in 1862 nearly got him fired before he started. He was not charismatic, soft-spoken, even hesitant, but utterly dominant over his king and even the powerful military, which privately mocked his weakness for uniforms. Try this interview with his biographer Jonathan Steinberg for a flavour of him. “This man means what he says,” Benjamin Disraeli concluded. Scary.

Roman history was again in vogue in Germany when in 1871, Bismarck’s patsy, Wilhelm I, king of victorious Prussia against Napoleon III, copied the Russian tsars and got an upgrade to Caesar – the new German Kaiser – proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at occupied Versailles. Less than 50 years later the defeated Germans were back in Versailles to accept an unjust, dictated peace in 1918, itself overthrown with a vengeance by Hitler in 1940.

Thank goodness the good Germans, the Germans of Beethoven and Schiller, have been back in charge since 1945, the kind of high-minded moderate people who were sidelined in the Bismarck era after the failed bourgeois revolution of 1848. They make their share of mistakes – the eurozone’s economic policies are largely shaped in Berlin – but they are not to be equated with the dreadful legacy of Kaiser Bill, let alone of Adolf Hitler, despite what unimaginative Eurosceptics say after reading the Daily Express.

Why does Bismarck escape blame as the chief architect of 20th-century Germany – and thus the man who created a militarised political machine that only he could handle? He used to get plenty of blame, but historical memory does funny things and the enormity of Hitler’s regime (he was “Vienna’s revenge on Berlin” wrote AJP Taylor) seems to have blotted out the significant past. When I ask Germans now they sometimes say: “Well, Bismarck is remembered mostly for the social security system he set up,” one designed to neutralise the appeal of socialism, still recognisable and admired today.

We can follow that line of argument. Bismarck’s Reich pioneered the modern welfare state, copied by others, including progressive British Liberals such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill between 1906 and the outbreak of war. Much criticism can be made of both of them over long careers, but neither was a militarist or would-be autocrat, bent on destroying accountable government.

Churchill was quite soppy about parliament. At a perilous moment in 1917 he told a fellow Liberal MP in the darkened Commons that “this little room is the shrine of the world’s liberties”, one that would decide the outcome of the war. “It is for the virtue of this that we shall muddle through to success and for lack of this Germany’s brilliant efficiency leads her to final destruction.” If we throw in a little help from the US and the British empire he was right about that – twice. You can imagine Abraham Lincoln saying it – but never Bismarck.

In any case there is a sense in which the first world war was indeed over by Christmas 1914, only Bismarck’s autocratic heirs couldn’t accept it. Unlike in 1870 and again in 1940 the Germans had failed to take Paris in another lightning war that summer. At great cost in lives the armies of the despised French Third Republic – shovelling troops up from the capital in buses and taxis – and Britain’s “contemptible little army” (Kaiser Bill’s phrase) held the line at the first battle of the Marne, just 30 miles north-east of Paris.

It had been a close thing, but on 11 September Helmuth von Moltke, German commander and nephew of the victor of 1870, ordered a retreat to the river Aisne, lines that would be “fortified and defended”, he ordered – in other words trenches. They soon stretched 600 miles from the Channel to the Swiss frontier. Blitzkrieg turned into “iron and blood” stalemate, much as it had in the trench warfare of Abraham Lincoln’s US civil war (1861-65) if anyone had noticed.

Moltke was replaced as chief of the German general staff three days later, but the war went on: four Christmases, including one truce, to go. The winners would be the ones with the deepest pockets, not with the biggest Krupp gun or the silliest helmets.
By Rich
#14506559
Groves wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2014/dec/31/bismarck-escaped-blame-first-world-war
Utterly, utterly astounding!

Adoph Hitler wrote:All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Utterly, utterly astounding! How true Hitler's words still ring today. Has anyone else read any history? Is anyone aware of the incredible murderous and sometimes genocidal militarist expansionism, that Britain, France, Russia, the United States and Belgium undertook in the nineteen century and continued into the twentieth century. And then someone can attempt to portray Bismark as some sort of abnormal aggressor in a paper that is supposedly left wing supposedly anti crude -British jingoism simply beggars belief.
#14506687
The root cause of the First World War was Serbian nationalism and nationalist Serbs wanted to establish a greater Serbia including Bosnia and Herzegovina and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand provided Austria-Hungary with a casus belli. The Black Hand composed with by members of the Serbian Army engaged in terrorist activities in Serbia and triggering an all-out war with Austria-Hungary by using violence was their ultimate goal. It was the first crack in the amour that undermined the entire system of European colonialism and Serbian nationalists, who felt oppressed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, aimed at breaking off Austria-Hungary's south-Slav provinces so that they could be combined into a Yugoslavia. It was not unusual for unruly subjects to provoke their colonial overloads into an all-out war by a series of terrorist acts. Imperial Japan was dragged into the Second Sino-Japanese War by the minor border skirmishes at the bridge, known as the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The Konoe government opened negotiations with Chiang Kai-Shek but a Japanese naval officer was shot in Shanghai in the midst of peace negotiations, leading directly to a full-scale war between Japan and China. In both instances, it was the terrorists who prevailed in the end as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Japanese Empire ceased to exist.

Image
In 1876, Bosnia was given to Austria-Hungary after an agreement between the Russians and Austria-Hungary. Two years later at the Congress of Berlin, Austria-Hungary was given a mandate to govern Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs in Bosnia were not allowed to celebrate St. Sava’s Day, the most important of Serbia’s saints and the singing of Serbia folk songs was banned. In 1908, Austria-Hungary decided to incorporate Bosnia and Herzegovina into her empire. Serbia complained but was threatened with war if there was any attempt made to intervene. On March 31st 1909, Serbia had to issue a statement recognising the new status of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ‘Apis’ refused to accept what had happened to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1911, he founded ‘Union or Death’, which later became the ‘Black Hand’. This movement had two simple aims: the liberation of all Serbs under foreign rule and the creation of a Kingdom of Serbia that incorporated all Serbs. Any member of ‘Black Hand’ had to sign a form that stated that he/she was willing to give up his/her life for the movement. ‘Black Hand’ set about liasing with other known secret Serb organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Terrorist action was encouraged against what ‘Black Hand’ believed were occupying forces.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bl ... vement.htm


Japan caused the war by first invading the Korean peninsula and Manchuria and by then setting to invade the rest of China.


The colonisation of Korea met European standards at the time and it was backed by the US and Britain. The legitimacy of the puppet government of Manchuria was slightly questionable but the Lytton Report issued by Lord Lytton in 1932 noted that Japan had special interests of long standing in Manchuria. The report further stated that China also bore some responsibility for the crisis because it had inflamed anti-Japanese feeling among the populace and failed to participate in negotiations. Imperial Japan had no plan to gobble up the rest of China and the crisis was escalated into a full-fledged war because of the constant provocation by Chinese nationalists. Emperor Hirohito explicitly ordered his subordinates from Konoe to front-line commanders in China to restrain themselves and resolve the crisis peacefully but the very presence of Japanese troops on Chinese soil gave rise to the resistance movement similar to the Black Hand in Serbia.

Although a ceasefire had been installed, further efforts to defuse the escalating conflict failed, largely due to actions by the Japanese Northern China Area Army commanders and militarists within the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff. Wanping was shelled on 20 July and full scale fighting erupted at Langfang on 25 July.[4] After launching a bitter and bloody attack on the Japanese lines on the 27 July, General Sung was defeated and forced to retreat behind the Yongding River by the next day. The Japanese gave Sung and his troops "free passage", then moved in to pacify areas surrounding Beijing and Tianjin. However, the Japanese Army had been given orders not to advance further than the Yongding River. In a sudden volte-face, the Konoe government's foreign minister opened negotiations with Chiang Kai-Shek's government in Nanjing and stated: "Japan wants Chinese cooperation, not Chinese land." Nevertheless, negotiations failed to move further than preparation as, on 9 August 1937, a Japanese naval officer was shot in Shanghai, instigating the war proper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_Bridge_Incident
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 05 Jan 2015 21:34, edited 3 times in total.
#14506843
ThirdTerm wrote:The root cause of the First World War was Serbian nationalism and nationalist Serbs wanted to establish a greater Serbia ...

Serbia was just a small and backward country. On its own, Serbian nationalism wouldn't have made any difference. What did make a difference was that Russia supported the Serbs politically and France bankrolled Serbian militias in order to defeat their common rival: the Austria-Hungarians.

Thus, the cause of WWI is Imperialism: British, French, German, Austrian, Russian, Serbian, Italian, etc. imperialism. Everything else is war propaganda people should have gotten over 100 years after the fact.

Imperial Japan was dragged into the Second Sino-Japanese War by the minor border skirmishes at the bridge, known as the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The Konoe government opened negotiations with Chiang Kai-Shek but a Japanese naval officer was shot in Shanghai in the midst of peace negotiations, leading directly to a full-scale war between Japan and China.

Have you gone to school in Japan? That is where they teach that sort of absurd history. Japan caused the war by first invading the Korean peninsula and Manchuria and by then setting to invade the rest of China.
By Rich
#14506849
Atlantis wrote:Thus, the cause of WWI is Imperialism: British, French, German, Austrian, Russian, Serbian, Italian, etc. imperialism.
How on earth was German imperialism to blame? Germany was not seeking expansion just seeking to support Austria against regicidal terrorists. Serbia acted as it did because it had a blank check form Russia. Russia acted as it did because it had a blank check from France. Although not critical France was encouraged in her aggressions by the anti German scum within the British cabinet such as Gray and Churchill.

Much is made of increasing German peace demands during the war. Again this has been twisted in to some perverted narrative of German aggressive expansionism. The Germans were actually seeking permanent peace, seeking to ensure that French and Russian aggressors would not be able to repeat the whole thing a few years down the road.

Just imagine if the Irish security service organised the murder of Wills and Kate, and then when the news of the deaths came thought the French embassy in Ireland held a a party to celebrate. The Austrians were at the end of their tether dealing with Serbia, backed up as they were by the blank check from Russia.
Last edited by Rich on 05 Jan 2015 11:39, edited 1 time in total.
#14506850
Rich wrote:How on earth was German imperialism to blame? Germany was not seeking expansion


Yes it was, the Kaiser wanted to annex Belgium, remember. We have his correspondence to prove it. He particularly liked it being described to him as a prospective 'vassal'.

Almost none of these people are going to die. […]

It's an odd thing for you to say considering the […]

Election 2020

I could post a bunch of articles from mainstream […]

Unity 2020

I suggested public mass demonstrations a few years[…]