Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
angrystaffofficer.com
Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#2What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest.
Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain.
The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#3What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest. Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain. The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.
How about refute the core of the work instead of focusing on a small issue?
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#4The other interesting thing about German unification is it led directly to the new nation deciding that universal health care should be a state sponsored thing.
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#5What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest. Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain. The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.
This seems extraordinarily nitpicky given that the first paragraph exists merely to set up the simplistic view of the war's causes which the rest of the article is dedicated to knocking down.
I mean, by all means point it out, but bailing out on the whole article because of that is a bit much.
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#6And it meant that there was a precedence for taking up arms for equality and freedom...for a war that would, "make the world safe for democracy," as President Woodrow Wilson put it in 1917 when he requested a declaration of war on the German Empire.
What was the German Empire doing to threaten equality, freedom, and democracy that France and England and the US weren't also doing? The argument that the US entered because it declared itself to be in favor of those ideals is quite a stretch.
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#7What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest. Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain. The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.
I don't know if the text has been changed, but it reads:-
> After all, it was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Serbia in 1914
and doesn't say anything about _where_ the assassination happened.
edit: the words "in Serbia" have been pointed out to me; there is a bug in my reading comprehension; sorry for the errant comment.
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#8If this is up your street, may I recommend Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon, which has over ten hours of podcast material exploring the lead up to the first world war.
Probably the best podcast I've ever downloaded, and insane that it's available for nearly free.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepri...
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#9What's interesting to me here is that, it seems like a lot of the causes/triggers to WWI/WWII were due to conflicts between nations and/or assassinations. We don't necessarily have anything as big as 2 equal nations fighting, capitals getting invaded etc.
So does that mean WWIII will probably never happen given that we don't have any of of these crazy causes/triggers?
Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars
#10What a fail. The very first paragraph is factually wrong. Didn't read the rest. Due to already receiving negative feedback on my comment let me explain. The assasination didn't happen in Serbia but Bosnia that was at the time occupied by Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a huge fail by somebody who tries to explain to us what 'really happened'.
I don't know if the text has been changed, but it reads:- > After all, it was the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Serbia in 1914 and doesn't say anything about _where_ the assassination happened. edit: the words "in Serbia" have been pointed out to me; there is a bug in my reading comprehension; sorry for the errant comment.
The bit where it says "in Serbia" seems to be talking about where the assassination happened. That could potentially refer to where he was Archduke instead, but that would be a really odd way to construct the sentence if so, and in any case would still be wrong.