in your opinion was there one country that was responsible for this war?
do you think Germany was in the wrong in what it did?

I blame Austria-Hungary for being too slow to mobilise.

party_pants said:

I blame Austria-Hungary for being too slow to mobilise.

:)

I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich ‘cause he was hungry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP_0DkpFOKs

Britain preferred to remain in splendid isolation protected by its navy the equal to the next two navies combined. It would traditionally side with the weaker European powers against the greater an considered France its biggest threat. The decline of the Ottoman empire and the rise of an expansionist Russian one focussed minds toward the east. The five main powers always allowed a third alliance to alter the balance and was used by all, secret treaties and understanding as well as overt proclamations to force political and economic outcomes.

Despite Britain desiring an alliance with Germany and via its royal connections considered it a friend and as a counter to France, Germany could not do so for fear of antagonising Russia. At the same time Wilhelm II mainly for vanity reasons wanted a powerful navy and a more expansionist role, Bismarck was happy with a small navy and its civil fleet operated under the protection of the British Navy and coaled at British facilities. Bismarck understood that Germany with the greatest land army on the continent it would be provocative to threatened British naval supremacy and threatening Britains wide spread colonies, this the British could not tolerate. The alliances were constantly shifting, and at this time Germany was also expanding its colonies and going into Africa where Germany and England were rubbing up against each other in South Africa with the Boer War.

Rising and declining Empires created a world in flux. Hard to find fault, each country operated in its own interests but Germany increasing its Navy certainly didnt help.

Skunkworks said:

Britain preferred to remain in splendid isolation protected by its navy the equal to the next two navies combined. It would traditionally side with the weaker European powers against the greater an considered France its biggest threat. The decline of the Ottoman empire and the rise of an expansionist Russian one focussed minds toward the east. The five main powers always allowed a third alliance to alter the balance and was used by all, secret treaties and understanding as well as overt proclamations to force political and economic outcomes.

Despite Britain desiring an alliance with Germany and via its royal connections considered it a friend and as a counter to France, Germany could not do so for fear of antagonising Russia. At the same time Wilhelm II mainly for vanity reasons wanted a powerful navy and a more expansionist role, Bismarck was happy with a small navy and its civil fleet operated under the protection of the British Navy and coaled at British facilities. Bismarck understood that Germany with the greatest land army on the continent it would be provocative to threatened British naval supremacy and threatening Britains wide spread colonies, this the British could not tolerate. The alliances were constantly shifting, and at this time Germany was also expanding its colonies and going into Africa where Germany and England were rubbing up against each other in South Africa with the Boer War.

Rising and declining Empires created a world in flux. Hard to find fault, each country operated in its own interests but Germany increasing its Navy certainly didnt help.

WELL DONE SKUNK :)

Add to that the Germans genuinely feared Russia. At the time Germany was ahead of Russia in terms of industrial and economic development, but they knew that is Russia ever got their shit together they would become a superpower with their huge population and natural resources – as they indeed did a few decades later. Some in the German high command saw war with Russia as inevitable, and better from a German point of view for it to happen sooner rather than later while Russia was still relatively weak. While you might argue Germany wasn’t solely responsible for starting WW1, they certainly did nothing to stop it.

WW1 was started by a terrorist organisation known to the serbian secret police
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead in Sarajevo, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six Bosnian Serb assassins coordinated by Danilo Ilić. The political objective of the assassination was to break off Austria-Hungary’s south-Slav provinces so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia. The assassins’ motives were consistent with the movement that later became known as Young Bosnia. Serbian military officers stood behind the attack.

At the top of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his righthand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Masterspy Rade Malobabić. Major Tankosić armed (with bombs and pistols) and trained the assassins, and the assassins were given access to the same clandestine tunnel of safe-houses and agents that Rade Malobabić used for the infiltration of weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.

The assassins, the key members of the clandestine tunnel, and the key Serbian military conspirators who were still alive were arrested, tried, convicted and punished. Those who were arrested in Bosnia were tried in Sarajevo in October 1914. The other conspirators were arrested and tried before a Serbian kangaroo court on the French-controlled Salonika Front in 1916–1917 on unrelated false charges; Serbia executed three of the top military conspirators. Much of what is known about the assassinations comes from these two trials and related records.

Assignment of responsibility for the bombing and murders of 28 June is highly controversial because the attack led to the outbreak of World War I one month later.

WW2 The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz; Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka) was a staged attack by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

wookiemeister said:

WW1 was started by a terrorist organisation known to the serbian secret police
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead in Sarajevo, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six Bosnian Serb assassins coordinated by Danilo Ilić. The political objective of the assassination was to break off Austria-Hungary’s south-Slav provinces so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia. The assassins’ motives were consistent with the movement that later became known as Young Bosnia. Serbian military officers stood behind the attack.

At the top of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his righthand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Masterspy Rade Malobabić. Major Tankosić armed (with bombs and pistols) and trained the assassins, and the assassins were given access to the same clandestine tunnel of safe-houses and agents that Rade Malobabić used for the infiltration of weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.

The assassins, the key members of the clandestine tunnel, and the key Serbian military conspirators who were still alive were arrested, tried, convicted and punished. Those who were arrested in Bosnia were tried in Sarajevo in October 1914. The other conspirators were arrested and tried before a Serbian kangaroo court on the French-controlled Salonika Front in 1916–1917 on unrelated false charges; Serbia executed three of the top military conspirators. Much of what is known about the assassinations comes from these two trials and related records.

Assignment of responsibility for the bombing and murders of 28 June is highly controversial because the attack led to the outbreak of World War I one month later.

WW2 The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz; Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka) was a staged attack by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

well done ,, im a bit drunk but the problem is im reviewing how i feel about how we view history and how its perverted .

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

robadob said:

wookiemeister said:

WW1 was started by a terrorist organisation known to the serbian secret police
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead in Sarajevo, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six Bosnian Serb assassins coordinated by Danilo Ilić. The political objective of the assassination was to break off Austria-Hungary’s south-Slav provinces so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia. The assassins’ motives were consistent with the movement that later became known as Young Bosnia. Serbian military officers stood behind the attack.

At the top of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his righthand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Masterspy Rade Malobabić. Major Tankosić armed (with bombs and pistols) and trained the assassins, and the assassins were given access to the same clandestine tunnel of safe-houses and agents that Rade Malobabić used for the infiltration of weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.

The assassins, the key members of the clandestine tunnel, and the key Serbian military conspirators who were still alive were arrested, tried, convicted and punished. Those who were arrested in Bosnia were tried in Sarajevo in October 1914. The other conspirators were arrested and tried before a Serbian kangaroo court on the French-controlled Salonika Front in 1916–1917 on unrelated false charges; Serbia executed three of the top military conspirators. Much of what is known about the assassinations comes from these two trials and related records.

Assignment of responsibility for the bombing and murders of 28 June is highly controversial because the attack led to the outbreak of World War I one month later.

WW2 The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz; Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka) was a staged attack by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

well done ,, im a bit drunk but the problem is im reviewing how i feel about how we view history and how its perverted .

its always been perverted

then you’ve got the whole anzac day and nov 11 thing and the wholesale brainwashing

there was reason to invade iraq , the afghanistan situation should have been spent looking for obama not trying to fight the taliban for decades. in another ten years we’ll most likely still be there makign some excuse or the other about why we need to be there.

the only reason the muslim world hates the US is because its gone marching around blowing things up and invading countries – just leave them alone and sell them weapons, we have to get involved because we stopped having an armed force that could defend the country adequately. in another few decades it won’t matter anyway.

the days to remember the dea have just become a way to justify whatever war they are fighting, i’m tired of it and had completely forgotten about it today.

19 shillings said:

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

all of them

it takes two to tango

for all of their tears about WW2 poland had been happy to get involved with invasions in the middle east – again to get american backing

if the americans had just continued with the moon missions instead of fighting any more wars they would have got a lot more from that (trade, kudos etc)

the only politician i can see with any sense in america is ron paul, he says stop the debt, stop the wars, stop propping up regimes and pull out of other peoples countries – let them get on with it.

wookiemeister said:

robadob said:

wookiemeister said:

WW1 was started by a terrorist organisation known to the serbian secret police
On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead in Sarajevo, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a group of six Bosnian Serb assassins coordinated by Danilo Ilić. The political objective of the assassination was to break off Austria-Hungary’s south-Slav provinces so they could be combined into a Greater Serbia or a Yugoslavia. The assassins’ motives were consistent with the movement that later became known as Young Bosnia. Serbian military officers stood behind the attack.

At the top of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his righthand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Masterspy Rade Malobabić. Major Tankosić armed (with bombs and pistols) and trained the assassins, and the assassins were given access to the same clandestine tunnel of safe-houses and agents that Rade Malobabić used for the infiltration of weapons and operatives into Austria-Hungary.

The assassins, the key members of the clandestine tunnel, and the key Serbian military conspirators who were still alive were arrested, tried, convicted and punished. Those who were arrested in Bosnia were tried in Sarajevo in October 1914. The other conspirators were arrested and tried before a Serbian kangaroo court on the French-controlled Salonika Front in 1916–1917 on unrelated false charges; Serbia executed three of the top military conspirators. Much of what is known about the assassinations comes from these two trials and related records.

Assignment of responsibility for the bombing and murders of 28 June is highly controversial because the attack led to the outbreak of World War I one month later.

WW2 The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz; Polish: Prowokacja gliwicka) was a staged attack by Nazi forces posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

well done ,, im a bit drunk but the problem is im reviewing how i feel about how we view history and how its perverted .

its always been perverted

then you’ve got the whole anzac day and nov 11 thing and the wholesale brainwashing

there was NO reason to invade iraq , the afghanistan situation should have been spent looking for obama not trying to fight the taliban for decades. in another ten years we’ll most likely still be there makign some excuse or the other about why we need to be there.

the only reason the muslim world hates the US is because its gone marching around blowing things up and invading countries – just leave them alone and sell them weapons, we have to get involved because we stopped having an armed force that could defend the country adequately. in another few decades it won’t matter anyway.

the days to remember the dea have just become a way to justify whatever war they are fighting, i’m tired of it and had completely forgotten about it today.

wookiemeister said:

19 shillings said:

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

all of them

it takes two to tango

for all of their tears about WW2 poland had been happy to get involved with invasions in the middle east – again to get american backing

if the americans had just continued with the moon missions instead of fighting any more wars they would have got a lot more from that (trade, kudos etc)

the only politician i can see with any sense in america is ron paul, he says stop the debt, stop the wars, stop propping up regimes and pull out of other peoples countries – let them get on with it.

—

ok wookie, I see what politics you respect but I don’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

wookiemeister said:

for all of their tears about WW2 poland had been happy to get involved with invasions in the middle east – again to get american backing

I imagine it is due to Polands sad history where at times it has disappeared off the map that it would seek engagement and align itself with a great power.

19 shillings said:

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

War was different then, it wasn’t intended as a war of conquest by any side. More a war that would end in a negotiated settlement, with the side doing worst on the battlefield having to make major concessions to those who did best. They weren’t going into it with the idea of total conquest of rivals and annexing them whole.

party_pants said:

19 shillings said:

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

War was different then, it wasn’t intended as a war of conquest by any side. More a war that would end in a negotiated settlement, with the side doing worst on the battlefield having to make major concessions to those who did best. They weren’t going into it with the idea of total conquest of rivals and annexing them whole.

you’ll find that war is usually all about land and taking it

the germans wanted lebensraum and greater germania
the israelis want greater israel as foretold by the old testament (all the land from the nile to euphrates)
russia still wants to extend down to the indian ocean
china invaded tibet and is still shooting the inhabitants to this day
australia was taken by the britishindia has been invaded many times
africa is a basketcase of warring tribes trying to get land

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

19 shillings said:

To start a war means you think you can win it.

Who felt they had military superiority?

War was different then, it wasn’t intended as a war of conquest by any side. More a war that would end in a negotiated settlement, with the side doing worst on the battlefield having to make major concessions to those who did best. They weren’t going into it with the idea of total conquest of rivals and annexing them whole.

you’ll find that war is usually all about land and taking it

the germans wanted lebensraum and greater germania
the israelis want greater israel as foretold by the old testament (all the land from the nile to euphrates)
russia still wants to extend down to the indian ocean
china invaded tibet and is still shooting the inhabitants to this day
australia was taken by the britishindia has been invaded many times
africa is a basketcase of warring tribes trying to get land

Little bits of land. Often, a bit that one’s ancestors used to own for a couple of decades a few hundred eyars ago and therefor should have again.

How on Earth do you work out whether a spider has good vision or not? Experiment with fake prey and see what catches a spider’s attention?

Opps sorry.

The Northern Rivers of what is currently NSW belongs to Queensland including the Mount Warning Caldera.
If you look at the map and have a keen eye you can see where the boundry has been tampered with, the straight line turns into a polyline in the area concerned and was a cowardly and deliberate act by NSW pastoral interests with and ear to the corrupt government to deprive God fearing upright citizens of Queensland of valuable pastoral land. When Queensland(blessings and peace be upon it) secedes that rightful part of Queensland will be taken back through the courts or failing that by force.

>china invaded tibet and is still shooting the inhabitants to this day

Let us not forget, however, that Tibet invaded China in the past and in fact at one time controlled the capital of China.

At which point in history would you like to draw the line?

Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

morrie said:

Let us not forget, however, that Tibet invaded China in the past and in fact at one time controlled the capital of China.

At what time did Tibet hold the Chinese capital? I’m guessing Xian/Changan was the capital in question?

Witty Rejoinder said:

morrie said:

Let us not forget, however, that Tibet invaded China in the past and in fact at one time controlled the capital of China.

At what time did Tibet hold the Chinese capital? I’m guessing Xian/Changan was the capital in question?

In 763 a Tibetan army even invades T’ang China and briefly captures the capital at Xi’an.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa71#ixzz2CBhcOsPH

Angus Prune said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

War was different then, it wasn’t intended as a war of conquest by any side. More a war that would end in a negotiated settlement, with the side doing worst on the battlefield having to make major concessions to those who did best. They weren’t going into it with the idea of total conquest of rivals and annexing them whole.

you’ll find that war is usually all about land and taking it

the germans wanted lebensraum and greater germania
the israelis want greater israel as foretold by the old testament (all the land from the nile to euphrates)
russia still wants to extend down to the indian ocean
china invaded tibet and is still shooting the inhabitants to this day
australia was taken by the britishindia has been invaded many times
africa is a basketcase of warring tribes trying to get land

Little bits of land. Often, a bit that one’s ancestors used to own for a couple of decades a few hundred eyars ago and therefor should have again.

hmmm, as mel brooks said “all i want is a little piece”. its all about baby steps. the saxons were originally brought in england by the romans as mercenaries and later on by an english king to help fight a war, then they decided to stay. the normans were called in to fight in ireland again on the side of an irish king – then they decided to stay. the romans decided wanted to stay wherever they went. the chinese want land in india too not just tibet and lots of other places too. isreal has legitimacy in history, abraham was an iraqi and not even from palestine – his tribe went to canaan later. when things weren’t too good abrahams tribe then cleared off to egypt!! after a splinter group fo the tribe was kicked out of egypt they then went back to canaan – all the land from the nile to the euphrates isn’t a small parcel of land.

for the moment australia can wave the flag and hand out victoria crosses blowing the crap out of some hill tribes in the the desert and claim victory
i don’t subscribe to the little parcels of land theory

Previous explorations of this revealed that Tibet controlled Baghdad at the same time, IIRC.

>Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

But, but, but, these were kind and gentle buddhists, the sort beloved by hollywood celebrities.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Northern Rivers of what is currently NSW belongs to Queensland including the Mount Warning Caldera.
If you look at the map and have a keen eye you can see where the boundry has been tampered with, the straight line turns into a polyline in the area concerned and was a cowardly and deliberate act by NSW pastoral interests with and ear to the corrupt government to deprive God fearing upright citizens of Queensland of valuable pastoral land. When Queensland(blessings and peace be upon it) secedes that rightful part of Queensland will be taken back through the courts or failing that by force.

judging by the body language ?

>Previous explorations of this revealed that Tibet controlled Baghdad at the same time, IIRC.

Jaysus, that’s a fair hike.

sibeen said:

>Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

But, but, but, these were kind and gentle buddhists, the sort beloved by hollywood celebrities.

It is interesting to compare that with the view presented in the book of the world that I had as a kid. It paints a picture of peasants dominated by a theorcatic elite who built vast palaces. Seems to ring a bell, somewhere.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Northern Rivers of what is currently NSW belongs to Queensland including the Mount Warning Caldera.
If you look at the map and have a keen eye you can see where the boundry has been tampered with, the straight line turns into a polyline in the area concerned and was a cowardly and deliberate act by NSW pastoral interests with and ear to the corrupt government to deprive God fearing upright citizens of Queensland of valuable pastoral land. When Queensland(blessings and peace be upon it) secedes that rightful part of Queensland will be taken back through the courts or failing that by force.

Meh, QLDers don’t deserve nice things.

morrie said:

sibeen said:

>Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

But, but, but, these were kind and gentle buddhists, the sort beloved by hollywood celebrities.

It is interesting to compare that with the view presented in the book of the world that I had as a kid. It paints a picture of peasants dominated by a theorcatic elite who built vast palaces. Seems to ring a bell, somewhere.

Brazil?

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

sibeen said:

>Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

But, but, but, these were kind and gentle buddhists, the sort beloved by hollywood celebrities.

It is interesting to compare that with the view presented in the book of the world that I had as a kid. It paints a picture of peasants dominated by a theorcatic elite who built vast palaces. Seems to ring a bell, somewhere.

Brazil?

Funny you should mention that. A friend sent me a picture of a church in Rio the other day that would put the cathedrals of France in the shade in terms of graniosity.

I am including these deliberate spelling mistakes as a test. You are all doing well.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Northern Rivers of what is currently NSW belongs to Queensland including the Mount Warning Caldera.
If you look at the map and have a keen eye you can see where the boundry has been tampered with, the straight line turns into a polyline in the area concerned and was a cowardly and deliberate act by NSW pastoral interests with and ear to the corrupt government to deprive God fearing upright citizens of Queensland of valuable pastoral land. When Queensland(blessings and peace be upon it) secedes that rightful part of Queensland will be taken back through the courts or failing that by force.

-

Yeah well, we have paid you back big time, Greg Inglis, NSW born and bred now plays for Canetoads.
With him on his rightful country it would be 7 zip this side.;p

morrie said:

You are all doing well.

Thank you Mr Grace..

party_pants said:

morrie said:

You are all doing well.

Thank you Mr Grace..

Carry on, Peacock..

I thought three bottles of Hollandia premium lager 650 ml for $4 ea. wasn’t too bad for a random purchase.

morrie said:

>china invaded tibet and is still shooting the inhabitants to this day

Let us not forget, however, that Tibet invaded China in the past and in fact at one time controlled the capital of China.

At which point in history would you like to draw the line?

Is a theocracy a desirable sort of state?

you’ll find any excuse is enough, you don’t need to have been invaded

alexander the great invaded persia on the pretext that the persians invaded 200 years earlier

morrie said:

Funny you should mention that. A friend sent me a picture of a church in Rio the other day that would put the cathedrals of France in the shade in terms of graniosity.

Can you remember its name?

The War of Jenkins’ Ear was a conflict between Great Britain and Spain that lasted from 1739 to 1748, with major operations largely ended by 1742. Its unusual name, coined by Thomas Carlyle in 1858, refers to an ear severed from Robert Jenkins, captain of a British merchant ship. The severed ear was subsequently exhibited before Parliament. The tale of the ear’s separation from Jenkins, following the boarding of his vessel by Spanish coast guards in 1731, provided the impetus to war against the Spanish Empire, ostensibly to encourage the Spanish not to renege on the lucrative asiento contract (permission to sell slaves in Spanish America).

After 1742 the war was subsumed by the wider War of the Austrian Succession involving most of the powers of Europe. Peace arrived with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748.

Witty Rejoinder said:

morrie said:

Funny you should mention that. A friend sent me a picture of a church in Rio the other day that would put the cathedrals of France in the shade in terms of graniosity.

Can you remember its name?

mucho grandee

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

morrie said:

Funny you should mention that. A friend sent me a picture of a church in Rio the other day that would put the cathedrals of France in the shade in terms of graniosity.

Can you remember its name?

mucho grandee

Heh