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

71–80 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#71

Post by tannhauser23 »

sytelus wrote: post #67
badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

I still don't get how Franco-Prussian war was the cause for WW-I after nearly 45 years. Sure, French were pissed off with Prussia in 1870 but then almost two generations passed by before WW-I. The whole article talks about France and Germany as if they are each single person fighting with other and waiting for 45 years to take revenge. Lots of things changes during two generations - governments, art, politics, econom…

Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was a source of ongoing resentment by the French. As was France's loss of its status as the dominant land power in Europe. War was not inevitable, but the unresolved issues from the Franco-Prussian war ensured that the two dominant continental powers would be enemies. France's desire to be secure against Germany leads it to form an alliance with Russia, which then puts Germany in a terrible situation of being surrounded by two great powers. You're right, it's not like two people held a grudge for 45 years, but the war made it likely that the two nations would fight each other again.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#72

Post by dmichulke »

neaden wrote: post #15
67726e wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about refute the core of the work instead of focusing on a small issue?

Well when it comes to WW2 he says "The U.S. military that desegregated in 1948 had recently assisted in putting down the second German attempt at empire in the 20th century – an attempt that itself grew out of bitterness and hate caused by the terms of surrender dictated by the French at the conclusion of World War I." Which is all essentially bullshit. The Treaty of Versailles was not unusually harsh, certainly when…

Yet for some reason everyone, including the French, agreed a decade later to cancel the reparations which were expected to be fully repaid in 2008 (~90 years after end of WW1).

But more importantly, those who (order) misconduct in war are very rarely the same people who pay the reparations.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#73

Post by chiph »

bluejekyll wrote: post #36

So, I had always learned that the American Civil war was a foreshadowing of WWI, both the high number of casualties, and the entrenchment which was being utilized by the end of the Civil War... I knew about the Austro-Prussian and the Franco-Prussian Wars, but I didn't know about the casualties, OMG: > Total casualties in killed, wounded, and missing broke 100,000, with Austrian losses nearly doubling those of the Pr…

Both France and Germany (Prussia) had observers placed with the US and Confederate Armies during the US civil war, where observation balloons, quick-firing rifles (lever-actions), rail artillery, and other innovations were created.

They went back home, wrote reports, and were ignored by their leadership. Dooming the first several years of fighting in The Great War to be a repeat of all the other wars, with astronomical casualty counts on both sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_and_the_American_Civil...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#74

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

jordanpg wrote: post #32
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...

Carlin is entertaining to listen to at times, but the information density is quite low. He takes a long time to say not much, all the while sounding quite profound. I'd recommend the classic references instead/as well: * The First World War by John Keegan * The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman

That was my problem with Carlin too. He just says everything in that profound, dramatic and at the same time empty (due to low density of information) style and it was driving me up the wall.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#75

Post by whack »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #56
whack wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. Germany wasn't forced into anything. They still had the option of not starting the war at all . > ... but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium. "Passing through"? They were invading . (Yeah, they were inte…

You didn't listen to the podcast, did you?

Germany didn't have the choice not to fight France. France had decided to wage war against Germany, in support of their ally Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#First_Wo...

"France entered World War I because Russia and Germany were going to war, and France honored its treaty obligations to Russia.[58]"

Not that Germany wanted to wage war against Russia either. Germany declared war against Russia because they declared war against Austria which had declared war against the Serbs who had assassinated their archduke.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-world-war-e...

"The event that was widely acknowledged to have sparked the outbreak of World War I occurred on June 28, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death with his wife by the Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. Over the weeks that followed, Austria-Hungary blamed the Serbian government for the attack, hoping to use the incident as justification for settling the problem of Slavic nationalism in the tumultuous Balkans region once and for all. However, as Russia supported Serbia, an Austria-Hungary declaration of war was delayed until its leaders received assurances from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause in the event of a Russian intervention. ... Russia declared its intention to back Serbia in the case of such a conflict, Austria-Hungary went ahead with its war declaration against Serbia on July 28, one month after the assassinations."

"Germany warned Russia, still only partially mobilized, that to continue to full mobilization against Austria-Hungary would mean war with Germany. While insisting that Russia immediately halt mobilization, Germany began its own mobilization; when the Russians refused the German demands, Germany declared war on the czarist empire on August 1."

I don't mean to imply that Germany or any country is blame-free, but WW1 doesn't feature any clear cut good-vs-evil simplification the way WW2 does.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#76

Post by chiph »

WalterBright wrote: post #34

PBS just ran a 3 part "The Great War" which is an interesting documentary on the American perspective of WW1. It did strongly argue that America's entry into the war ensured the defeat of Germany.

This YT channel is broadcasting "the news from the front" as it happened 100 years ago. It's been fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#77

Post by vkou »

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.

You don't think the Entente killed civlians, looted, or conscripted laborers from occupied territories? (Even if we ignore the broader context of how they treated their colonies!)

Also, while Germany was carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, the Royal Navy was busy - literally starving - Germany, with its unrestricted naval blockade. Their justification was that soldiers eat bread - therefore, bread has a military purpose, and can be blockaded.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#78

Post by vkou »

WalterBright wrote: post #41
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.

It turns out the Lusitania was filled with arms after all. It's like painting a red cross on the roof of your military supply depots.

Actually, it's more like using civilians as human shields.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#79

Post by sgt101 »

cynusx wrote: post #65

The need for Germany to secure their left flank to avoid a two-front war and France's realization that it has nothing to gain from war with Germany also led to the creation of the European union in response. The idea was to deeply intertwine their economies so neither nation would benefit from war with each other. As for the US, their only objective is to prevent the rise of a dominant european power that can compete…

Nit pick alert ! The EU was created in response to the opportunity that the fall of the Soviets provided - to bind in and develop the economies of eastern europe. The binding of France to Germany was achieved with the European Economic Community, the removal of German military infrastructure and the comprehensive occupation of Germany by the UK, France, USSR and USA.

I don't see the USA as invested in preventing the rise of a European power that shares, approximately, the values of the USA. The USA entered WWII reluctantly, and the effect of it's entry was to shorten the war by many years, possibly a decade. Christ alone knows what the USSR would have looked like as the eventual winner in 1955. My thinking is, shattered in every conceivable way.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#80

Post by [deleted] »

tannhauser23 wrote: post #71
sytelus wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't get how Franco-Prussian war was the cause for WW-I after nearly 45 years. Sure, French were pissed off with Prussia in 1870 but then almost two generations passed by before WW-I. The whole article talks about France and Germany as if they are each single person fighting with other and waiting for 45 years to take revenge. Lots of things changes during two generations - governments, art, politics, econom…

Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was a source of ongoing resentment by the French. As was France's loss of its status as the dominant land power in Europe. War was not inevitable, but the unresolved issues from the Franco-Prussian war ensured that the two dominant continental powers would be enemies. France's desire to be secure against Germany leads it to form an alliance with Russia, which then puts Germany…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN