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

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#181

Post by Chathamization »

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…

> 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.

Wilhelm II was even planning an invasion of America in the late 1800's/early 1900's, an attempt at gunboat diplomacy[1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#182

Post by cinquemb »

anigbrowl wrote: post #70
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who will the US go to war with? It would have to be either China or Russia, both of whom learned the lessons of WWII at least as well as Europe did.

Some people would like to go to war with Islam, knock over a bunch of unstable Middle Eastern theocratic regimes, and essentially re-establish colonialism qua 'peace keeping operations' in a number of very resource-rich temperate countries, while denying strategic positional advantage to the other two actors you mention. Other people would like to have the US go to war with itself and exploit its geographic advantage…

I wonder whats more profitable? Destabilization of major global (read: strategic/tactical capabilities wrt nuclear weapons) belligerents from "internal struggle", or engaging in endeavors that pit such belligerents against one another?

If a rational actor had to pick their poison (if one is maximizing for profit, one needs to live long enough or in a environment that well better support/help realize such), I'd suspect they'd pick the former, then use/co-opt the appropriate the effective popular indoctrination/social dogmas in such respective countries to foster such ends as a force multiplier.

Maybe more drawn out than proxy war to MAD campaign, but less is at risk tactically along the way (setting aside spontaneous break out of ICBM volleys in response to extended amazon 404's for a period of time, or something on such similar level) to achieve relatively similar strategic aims "governments" usually have their eyes on if they are in position of relative power asymmetry they can leverage agaisnt others towards economic gains.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#183

Post by nickik »

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

I have not read Keegan but Tuchman has aged quite a bit.

I would recommend "The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914" and "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914".

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#184

Post by nickik »

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…

I really dont see how Germany could win in Spring 1917. The german generals had all the data and they were deperate, they launched all out offensives and stratrgy not because they thought it would bring sertain victory but rather because they were desperate.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#185

Post by nickik »

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…

I dont think this argument holds any water.

You essentially argue that the alliamce system caused the WW1 but I don't think that argument works very well. An alliance system alone does not cause war. The questiom is why within a given international situation some people start a war.

The reason the relation did not change was not just Alsace-Lorraine, there are other issues. So I really think it can not be called a root cause of WW1.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#186

Post by nickik »

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…

Maybe you should get your history correct. Before WW1 we were not in a situation where there were constant great power wars. There were limited wars 1860-1870 (Crimea, Franco-Prussian) but thats all , the last large great powers war was Napoleon and that was 120 years before WW1.

So from the Numbers one can argue that we are today still in a sitiation of endless struggle and we should expect a major war very soon.

I dont think that argument holds much water. Most nations before WW1 did not want war, just as now.

Also the idea that Germany is to small for the World is strange, because Britain was smaller, and before WW1 Germany had a huge population and industrial base. Germany had bad strategy, not a bad position.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#187

Post by usrusr »

sgt101 wrote: post #86
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…

Interesting - Northern Italy is/was part of Germany too ?

All the way down to Rome, occasionally. But please don't call the thing today's northern Italy was part of "Germany". That empire was an administrative framework for nomadic kings that had little to do with today's concepts of nation or ethnicity. If you can't do without mapping to current states, you have to pick Austria, because Vienna is where the Habsburg emperors had their main residence.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#188

Post by nickik »

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…

Geany might be able to spit on Paris put taking it is ahole other problem. Germany was never actually close taking Paris.

Calling Russia a paper tiger is complely wrong, just because they were not quite as effective as Britain, Germany and even France does notean they were a paper tiger. Compared to Austria, Turkey amd even Italy they managed a efficent economy and had a huge well trained army. The problem was that the civilian government failed, the militay and economic side were suprisingly strong.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#189

Post by aninhumer »

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?"

I guess an analogous comparison would anything that forgets that Hawaii and/or Alaska exist when referring to the US.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#190

Post by nickik »

jcranmer wrote: post #94

When talking about the world wars, it's fairly obvious that WWII occurred as a result of the consequences of the WWI peace treaty. So the question about what caused both world wars is really a question of what caused WWI. I happen to have been going back through this history recently, so it's well been on my mind. There are many putative causes for WWI. Wilson, for example, favored the idea that secret treaties was w…

I strongly take issue with the idea that peace treaty of WW1 caused WW2. The treaty wwas dead in the water before Hitler ever came to power.

WW2 happend because a fascist party managed to gain power after the greatest economic crisis in german history. This is somewhat related to WW1 and the Peace Treaty but saying the Peace Treaty is the reason is not substainable.

Post reply on HN