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

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#151

Post by SeanBoocock »

travmatt wrote: post #124
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

Related: "The Coming of the Third Reich", Richard Evans. I've been reading this recently, it's a very measured look at German politics, culture, and economy from Bismarck through Hitler. Utterly fascinating

I'd recommend the whole trilogy of books by Evans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Reich_Trilogy). The broad focus and often ground level perspective on German society is even more apparent in the second volume. I haven't encountered another source that better situates the experience of ordinary Germans in the political and cultural changes of the 1930s.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#152

Post by foobarian »

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.")

Serious question, what would be the analogous comparisons for "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom?"

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#153

Post by flukus »

afarrell wrote: post #148
flukus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Really? When did the Scots start to develop a notion of having a unique national character that made them non-English?

Well, obviously it was centuries ago but it has ebbed and flowed since then. For the 20th century though a lot of Scottish nationalism originated in the Scottish renaissance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance).

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#154

Post by adrianratnapala »

caf wrote: post #137
herewulf wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I doubt that anything as diffuse as a nation will have a tendency that can be explained in such rational-seeming ways. It's possible that Britain tended towards jealousy towards the dominant continental power, but it is difficult to compare such a theory to reality.

The dominant continental powers have been Rome, France, Germany and Russia. Each have, to put it mildy, their own special characteristics.

* Rome conquered and held on to (most of) Britain.

* France was Britain's neighbour. Each was a potential invader of the other right through the middle ages and most of the modern period.

* Up to 1945, Germany was an extraordinarily belligerent power that made enemies of just about everyone.

* Similarly Britain was a rival of soviet Russia only as part of a broader alliance that went far beyond any attempt at realpolitik.

For all the noise and heat regarding the EU, post cold-war Europe is a remarkably friendly place. By historical standards, there is "against" any more.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#155

Post by damontal »

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...

you can tell he rushed the ending. one of his source books was a fantastic read though - A World Undone by GJ Meyer https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553382403/ref=oh_aui_sear...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#156

Post by repeek »

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.

Past episodes are also available in the Audiobooks section of iTunes.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#157

Post by whack »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #87
whack wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Russ…

If I'm going to blame anybody, I'll blame Austro-Hungary for deliberately designing their ultimatum to be unacceptable to Serbia. Why did they do that? Because they wanted war with Serbia. So Germany had to honor their agreement with Austro-Hungary, and therefore had to violate Belgium's borders? If they had displayed as much honor and integrity toward Belgium as they did toward Austro-Hungary, that would have been a…

In hindsight, yes, every German from that era would have made different choices. However, at that time, it was hard to anticipate the extent to which other countries would involve themselves. The Germans of that time probably anticipated that at least one/some of the following would have occurred:

a) Serbia would give in to Austria's demands

b) Russia would not fully mobilize and commit itself so fully to war with Austria

c) In the event of war with Russia/France, Belgium would grant Germany right of passage, and remain neutral in the war

d) The UK would remain neutral in the war

e) USA would remain neutral in the war

Each of the above was a coin-toss in terms of likelihood, and if any of the above came up in Germany's favor, a long drawn out war would have been averted. Unfortunately for Germany, every one of those diplomatic outcomes went against them. Could Germany have made better decisions, with the benefit of hindsight? Of course. But I think it's unfair to portray them as evil villains, the way the Nazis rightfully are.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#158

Post by Clubber »

flukus wrote: post #141
Clubber wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the f…

World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.

Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#159

Post by rmckayfleming »

foobarian wrote: post #152
jonathonf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.")

Serious question, what would be the analogous comparisons for "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom?"

Great Britain is the island. So an analogy would be North America and United States of America. Roughly of course.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#160

Post by jcranmer »

zeteo wrote: post #120
jcranmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a…

Correct, if Germany had continued Bismarck's foreign policy [1] then the next war (if it came) would have looked very different. Antagonizing Russia in the Balkans, France in Morocco, and Britain on the high seas were rather gratuitous moves between 1900 - 1914, driven by Wilhelm II's personality more than by any geopolitical factors. It's amazing how much hubris it took to sink the Second Reich. As far as I can tell…

In mid-1917, the French army mutinied and was likely unable to resist a concentrated German offensive if it came; the British pushed on a major offensive in Flanders in part to prevent the Germans from realizing this. In 1918 (by which time the French army had recovered from mutinies), the Germans tried their Spring Offensive. And it failed for pretty much the same reason their original push in 1914 failed: their logistic systems just couldn't sustain the offensive long enough to prevent Allied reinforcement.

Even without US involvement, France, Britain, and Germany were effectively all devoid of manpower. Once the Spring Offensive failed, there really wasn't any ability on any side to carry on offensive operations, at least to the point of producing a clear end to the war. So the first country to fall apart from the stalemate would be the one to lose it all. And Germany certainly seems the strongest contender for being the first to fall. It was having problems keeping even its soldiers well-fed, and the Spring Offensive produced a very indefensible salient. Germany's hopes of victory died at the Second Battle of the Marne, and they probably would have died there even had the Americans not started streaming to the front lines.

Post reply on HN