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

131–140 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#131

Post by vkou »

WesleyLivesay wrote: post #119
vkou wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the comment above is questioning the belief that France would have packed it in and called it a day if Paris was captured (I believe the answer is no) not what would have happened if France was out of the war.

In that case, they underestimate the importance of Paris as a center of bureaucracy, logistics, communication, as well as that of the fortifications between it and the border.

France may have been able to hold on for a while longer, but losing Paris would have almost certainly made an armistice the preferable option. It would not have been able to regain its territory, its industrial output and manpower would have been dwarfed by Germany, and its allies were in no position to offer assistance.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#132

Post by Florin_Andrei »

kristianc wrote: post #35
jordanpg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

See - at times the pacing is what I quite like - I agree that there are other ways to get information across faster, but Carlin plays with the audio format to force you to dwell on certain things. It has some passages on the human cost / experience of war which are incredibly memorable imo. Of course no one source should be used in isolation and YMMV.

Horses for courses. You want scholarly work? There's a bunch of books for that. Want dramatization? Carlin does a good job.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#133

Post by xenadu02 »

quirkafleeg wrote: post #130
veddox wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's not even a case of "blowback" - such as could be argued about 19th century US imperialism and militarisation in Asia leading to it being dragged into WWII by Japan - his argument seems little more than the USA became a united country in 1866, and that united country would later show up five minutes before the end of two world wars to show Europe how it's done, saving everyone's ass[1]. By that reasoning, everyth…

The US Civil war did preserve a powerful United States but its impact was probably much greater in showing how modern wars would be fought, with much less lining up with muskets and firing in orderly lines and far more repeating rifles and rapid movements. You could also say Sherman's march presaged "total war". Railroads and steam power changed logistics forever. The transition was far from complete though.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#134

Post by stevefolta »

bluejekyll wrote: post #45
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…

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

> Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice.

...and even then, it wasn't entirely clear that the US would enter the European war, until Hitler declared war on the US.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#135

Post by throwanem »

jsnell wrote: post #127
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...

Blueprint for Armageddon is probably Carlin's weakest series. It tries to cram too much into too little time, and ends up almost incoherent unless you're already very familiar with the details from elsewhere. You walk away with the idea that fighting that war must have been pretty horrible, but not much else. I've read a lot of WWI books, and _A World Undone_ by G.J. Meyer was easily the best. Would recommend that to…

I wonder if this experience of Blueprint for Armageddon might not be an artifact of listening style. I found it very coherent, providing an integrated narrative of the entire war which nothing in my prior experience could match - but I also listened to it during my commute, 60 to 90 minutes at a time. Taken in smaller bites, I don't think I'd have found it to hang together nearly as well.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#136

Post by bluejekyll »

hackuser wrote: post #116
bluejekyll wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

> Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice. That seems like conventional wisdom, but the U.S. started a large military build-up before Pearl Harbor. The military draft began in 1940. And of course the U.S. was actively supporting the UK through lend-lease. There were still isolationists in Washington and even prominent supporters of Hitler in…

No debate on any of those points.

But, until Pearl Harbor and the Philippines there was no clear pretext for the US to declare war. And had they not attacked, it's not clear that FDR could have gotten congress to declare war. Some of those prominent supporters were significant industrialists like Ford, they would have fought intervention by all means.

After Pearl Harbor, there was no debate.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#137

Post by caf »

herewulf wrote: post #115
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…

Yes, Britain. We take it for granted today but Britain and France being allies was quite an amazing thing. They had been traditional enemies for about 800 years (let's not forget about the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century either). The Crimean War in 1853 saw them united against a common enemy - Russia. The Crimean War was also significant because Austria-Hungary, though not much of a belligerent, turned on Russ…

In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power. This is because Britain's enduring interest is to ensure that western Europe doesn't unite under one power, as this would threaten Britain itself. Before German unification, the dominant continental power was usually France.

(I believe this is also why Britain joined the EU in the first place - it's not a threat if Britain has a seat at the table.)

The upshot of this is that Britain was always going to enter WWI once it looked bad for France - if not Belgium, some reason would have been found.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#138

Post by flukus »

herewulf wrote: post #115
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…

Yes, Britain. We take it for granted today but Britain and France being allies was quite an amazing thing. They had been traditional enemies for about 800 years (let's not forget about the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century either). The Crimean War in 1853 saw them united against a common enemy - Russia. The Crimean War was also significant because Austria-Hungary, though not much of a belligerent, turned on Russ…

And just 20 years later they came close to becoming a single country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_Union#World_War...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#139

Post by caf »

jonathonf wrote: post #89
autokad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England definitely slowed Germany down but Germany was decidedly winning. Prior to US involvement, the front line was quite close to Paris. After, it was just over the border of Germany, and then as you said, they knew it was over. US' involvement was huge.

> England Britain. Along with contingents from most of its Empire. (Saying "England" when you mean "Britain" is like saying "Texas" when you mean "U.S.A.")

It's said that the first shot fired by the British Empire in WW1 was from Fort Nepean, Australia.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#140

Post by flukus »

jonathonf wrote: post #89
autokad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England definitely slowed Germany down but Germany was decidedly winning. Prior to US involvement, the front line was quite close to Paris. After, it was just over the border of Germany, and then as you said, they knew it was over. US' involvement was huge.

> England Britain. Along with contingents from most of its Empire. (Saying "England" when you mean "Britain" is like saying "Texas" when you mean "U.S.A.")

Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.
Post reply on HN