Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#21

Post by kensai »

"Two things of note happened in 1866 that would set the stage for the future, and in a very odd way, they served to counterbalance each other.

The first was the Austro-Prussian War. Now, why would a two month war between Germanic peoples be any type of benchmark in history? Well, it becomes incredibly important once you realize that it set the stage for the Franco-Prussian War and the Unification of Germany. Those two events nearly made World War I inevitable."

Well this is silly. If the Austrians had won, then we might have had a Franco-Austrian war. There was a problem in Alsace and Lorraine, a German-speaking population under the French. This had to be settled somehow. One of the two leading German nations would have done it: either the Prussians or the Austrians. Since the Prussians had won the 7-week war, it was them.

But too many what ifs... you can't do that in history, too many branches stem away from the root of a tree of possible alternatives.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#22

Post by threesixandnine »

mikeash wrote: post #5
threesixandnine wrote: post #2

What 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.

Bailing out of the whole article because of that little mistake is the only right thing to do if you want your brain to stay clean and not influenced by dilettants of the Internets. Why should I now read the whole article when I know I have to check every other 'fact'?

Fellow HNers who read the whole thing already confirmed that the article is bullshit. So I think I was right. Experience my friend.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#23

Post by whack »

neaden wrote: post #20
jimmyk wrote: post #6

And 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 beca…

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival.

For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford to fight a prolonged war. Germany offered Belgium neutrality and immunity as long as they were allowed to pass unimpeded through their highways, but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium.

For more nuance on this topic, check out Dan Carlin's very detailed podcast on WW1.

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepri...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#24

Post by jimmyk »

neaden wrote: post #20
jimmyk wrote: post #6

And 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 beca…

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies

Even if we grant that the German Empire was more cruel in waging war, which I am by no means prepared to do, the war did not take place in a vacuum. If the purpose of America entering the war was to make the world safe for equality, freedom, and democracy, then the conduct of the belligerents outside of the war is totally fair game. To that point, I'm sure I don't have to remind you how Great Britain had been treating its colonies for hundreds of years.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#25

Post by georgemonck »

neaden wrote: post #20
jimmyk wrote: post #6

And 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 beca…

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

"That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies."

Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they could turn away US merchant-ships without blowing them up. But with US shipping supplies to Britain, the only tool Germany had available was the submarine warfare, which is a much blunter tool.

From the perspective of an American citizen, I think that the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' pretext was bogus. The US should not have shipped supplies to either side, and then there would have been no submarine warfare against US ships.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#26

Post by mrbabbage »

neaden wrote: post #20
jimmyk wrote: post #6

And 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 beca…

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

> unrestricted submarine warfare

Just like America in the Pacific during WWII, eh

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#27

Post by Svip »

kensai wrote: post #21

"Two things of note happened in 1866 that would set the stage for the future, and in a very odd way, they served to counterbalance each other. The first was the Austro-Prussian War. Now, why would a two month war between Germanic peoples be any type of benchmark in history? Well, it becomes incredibly important once you realize that it set the stage for the Franco-Prussian War and the Unification of Germany. Those tw…

It's worth noting that Bismarck was against annexing Alsace and Lorraine, as he feared it would create an unnecessary adversary in France.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#28

Post by Animats »

Germany: too big for Europe, too small for the world.

It's worth reviewing the run-up to WWI. The pre-WWI model of Europe, an endless struggle between Great Powers which had gone on for a millennium, is Putin's model of the world. That's because it gives Russia a role in the world. As an economic power, Russia is in 12th place, behind S. Korea. In a peaceful, trade-based world, Russia is a bit player. Especially since the price of oil tanked.

Thus the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the war in Ukraine from 2014 to now. Putin's desire to be a player on the world stage drives this.

The post-WWII world was, for a long time, two superpowers with nuclear overkill capability glaring at each other but not doing much. That was surprisingly stable. But it is not, historically, a normal condition.

Right now, it's all too easy to bungle into a major war. Likely possibilities are N. Korea vs S. Korea and the US, China vs. somebody over the South China Sea, and Russia vs. Ukraine heating up.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#29

Post by badloginagain »

cholantesh wrote: post #19
kristianc wrote: post #8

If 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...

AFAIK, everything Prophets of Doom onward is completely free. Not sure how long that will last, and I would love for Dan to put out a monthly or yearly subscription via Patreon; his work is of such high quality.

The latest 10 episodes are free. If a new one is put out, the 10th oldest is no longer available.

You can buy his discography for something on the order of $50. Remember, if you think his shows are worth a dollar, Dan and Ben would love to have it.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#30

Post by neaden »

whack wrote: post #23
neaden wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford…

Are you serious? Invading a neutral country, burning the the entire village of Louvain, executing 6,000 civilians in reprisal strikes were all things Germany was forced into doing? Belgium actively tried to German soldiers because they were being invaded! That's a reasonable response to being invaded! I have no idea how you can write something like this.
Post reply on HN