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

101–110 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#101

Post by grotsnot »

vkou wrote: post #66
bluejekyll wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? I agree, they definitely believed it was going to be over quickly, but why would they have thought it was less than 9 months (easy to assume 500K killed based on previous experience). In addition to that, you had two countries that were literally preparing for this conflict for years, poking each other around the world u…

> Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian for…

Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#102

Post by veddox »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #60
zeveb wrote: post #48

> Not only had the Prussians humiliated them on the battlefield, but they had marched through the streets of Paris – and if that wasn’t enough, they had taken the French territories of Alsace and Lorraine and added them to their Germanic realms. Weeellll, Elsaß was German (i.e., part of the Holy Roman Empire) until 1639 & Lothringen was German until 1766. They were both retaken from France in 1871, retaken by France…

That's like listing how long Texas or California were part of Spain/Mexico. It's true, as history, but it wouldn't make the US any happier if those lands went back to Mexico. Current facts on the ground say that those are part of the US, and have been for over a hundred years.

Nobody is asking France to return Alsace-Lorraine, but in a historical article, one might expect at least a footnote to say that this wasn't just French territory! And I don't think the comparison with Texas is all that fitting: this particular territorial dispute goes back almost to the days of Charlemagne, with sovereignty changing numerous times. This isn't so much a case of "It was yours, now it's mine" as of "It was mine, then it was yours, then mine again, then yours again - now we can't really say whose it ought to be, but I still want it".

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#103

Post by Animats »

rwmj wrote: post #95
Animats wrote: post #28

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 sinc…

I've read Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers too (good book). However it's hard to see how the Great Powers "model" applies when everyone has nuclear weapons or can acquire them relatively easily.

Arguably, it stopped applying when everybody got serious firepower in the run-up to WWI. But WWI happened anyway.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#104

Post by eternalban »

Animats wrote: post #28

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 sinc…

> In a peaceful, trade-based world, Russia is a bit player. Especially since the price of oil tanked.

In a "peaceful, trade-based world" you may find that nations with scarce resources are no longer willing to pump it out at prices set in City of London.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#105

Post by veddox »

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…

> Tying in the US seems a bit forced here.

Absolutely. Obviously the Civil War did play a role (there's nothing in history that isn't connected in some way), but trying to set it up as a major cause of WW1+2? No thanks.

To me, the whole article seems to be the author trying to shoehorn history into his idea that the events of the year 1866 would somehow predestine the next half century. He brings up some interesting observations, but his main thesis doesn't hold water.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#106

Post by AnimalMuppet »

veddox wrote: post #102
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like listing how long Texas or California were part of Spain/Mexico. It's true, as history, but it wouldn't make the US any happier if those lands went back to Mexico. Current facts on the ground say that those are part of the US, and have been for over a hundred years.

Nobody is asking France to return Alsace-Lorraine, but in a historical article, one might expect at least a footnote to say that this wasn't just French territory! And I don't think the comparison with Texas is all that fitting: this particular territorial dispute goes back almost to the days of Charlemagne, with sovereignty changing numerous times. This isn't so much a case of "It was yours, now it's mine" as of "It…

My point was that, no matter how many times it went back and forth, it had been France for over a hundred years. That's "just French territory" for most reasonable purposes.

(Except this is Europe, where a hundred years is not a particularly long time...)

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#107

Post by vkou »

grotsnot wrote: post #101
vkou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian for…

Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)

The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated.

Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#108

Post by BurningFrog »

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

"The Guns of August" is fantastic!

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#109

Post by imbeau »

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…

It does make sense. The antecedents of World War I can be traced back to the demise of Charlemagne and how he chose to split his empire among his three sons. Obviously there are many proximate causes that contributed to the outbreak of the war, the fundamental instability of the French German relationship is a huge contributor. The Franco Prussian War crowned what was essentially the anti-Christ to the French in their own capital and united France and Russia in containing a unified Germany's expansion

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#110

Post by imbeau »

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…

It does make sense. The antecedents of World War I can be traced back to the demise of Charlemagne and how he chose to split his empire among his three sons. Obviously there are many proximate causes that contributed to the outbreak of the war, the fundamental instability of the French German relationship is a huge contributor. The Franco Prussian War crowned what was essentially the anti-Christ to the French in their own capital and united France and Russia in containing a unified Germany's expansion
Post reply on HN