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

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#201

Post by nzp »

emanreus wrote: post #118
yazan94 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, you are correct. Though it could be attributed to the author as a smaller mistake, as Franz was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. I am more confused to how the US's reconstruction had anything to do with setting the stage for World War 1. > For just as 1866 guaranteed a militarily and culturally strong Germany which would wear down Britain, France, and Italy to a near breaking point in World War I, it also…

> Though it could be attributed to the author as a smaller mistake, as Franz was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist. Not to nitpick but he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Though he was an ethnic Serb from Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the time occupied by Austria-Hungary. During his trial he stated: "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it mus…

The distinction is extremely important as since the breakup of Yugoslavia Serbian nationalists have tried and practically succeeded in erasing Young Bosnia's ideology presenting them as right-wing Serbian nationalists. Even saying they were Yugoslavian nationalists probably doesn't correctly convey to people of today what they really meant and wanted—they mostly also considered themselves anarchists/libertarian communists (one of the most read authors among the group was Kropotkin, Princip was actually reading his Memoirs of a Revolutionist the night before the assassination). Čabrinović was extremely active as an anarcho-syndicalist and had prior problems with authorities for organizing workers' struggles. They saw national (under the premise that most peoples of west Balkans are really the same ethnic group divided by religion) liberation as a means to further workers' liberation (if one looks at economic conditions of Bosnia, and most of Balkans at that time it can make some sense, but that's a different topic). What complicates their case was the fact that the assassination was materially supported by the Black Hand, a secret nationalist organization in the Serbian Army. To see how words and designations can mean little in politics, later in 1920's Yugoslavia there was a prominent “Yugoslavian nationalist“ movement ORJUNA (ORYUNA, Organization of Yugoslavian Nationalists) which was an openly fascist organization—the complete opposite of what Young Bosnia was.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#202

Post by Clubber »

vacri wrote: post #179
Clubber wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the definition of isolationism.

I would say that invading the territory of other nations and annexing it counts as involving yourself in the affairs of other nations. Historically, the US didn't want to interfere in Europe, absolutely, but it stuck its fingers in pretty much every other pie, excluding sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, how do you characterise sending warships to scare Japan into opening up for trade in 1868 as 'isolationism'?

Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests.

George Washington's farewell address addressed this:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Thomas Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Monroe:

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

Seward:

"defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations'...[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."

Here's a Wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-intervention...

You seem to be arguing that the US projects military power in it's own interests. That's undeniable, but claiming that as a counterpoint that we weren't isolationist in the 19th century is not what isolation means. For recent examples: invading Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not. Panama was because of the canal and trade routes. WWI and WWII ultimately was in our best interests but it wasn't obvious at the time, particularly early on, and the cost was immense. Right now, we are so intertwined in alliances that if just about any country goes to war outside of sub-saharan Africa, we are automatically at war.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#203

Post by jcranmer »

nickik wrote: post #190
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.

> 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.

Hitler's prestige within Germany was strongly bolstered by his ability to unwind provisions of the Versailles treaty. For example, the remilitarization of the Rhine valley (demilitarized by Versailles), the annexation of Austria (forbidden by Versailles), or the reestablishment of military conscription.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#204

Post by cholantesh »

badloginagain wrote: post #29
cholantesh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The latest 10 episodes are free. If a new one is put out, the 10th oldest is no longer available. You can buy his discography for something on the order of $50. Remember, if you think his shows are worth a dollar, Dan and Ben would love to have it.

Thanks for clarifying. I am happy to buy the discography, but I was hoping there was a way to do a repeating payment to support the project's continued development, as opposed to doing it on a show-by-show basis.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#205

Post by thegreatpl »

r00fus wrote: post #146
Clubber wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting anecdote, France weathered the world depression of the 30s much better than other countries because they kept getting reparation payments from Germany.

When I hear this I think of the main plot of the fantasy book "The Magic of Recluse" [1] where the increase of Order (good) came with the resultant increase in Chaos (evil). The analogy is that the Allied powers could probably have avoided the post-tranquility strife by not asking for The German Empire could not give. By creating this imbalance, they fed the very outcome they dreaded (another Great War). [2] https://…

In the Recluse Saga Chaos is not evil, and Order is not good. It is exactly that. Order and Chaos. Albeit most Chaos wizards tend to be evil, and most Order wizards tend to appear more evil. A lot of the heroes in the saga are actually Grey, or those who use a balance between Chaos and Order. Cyador, for example, was a decent empire despite being inherently Chaos.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#206

Post by jimmyk »

whack wrote: post #75
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Russ…

but WW1 doesn't feature any clear cut good-vs-evil simplification

Not for any lack of trying on the part of allied propagandists.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#207

Post by vacri »

Clubber wrote: post #202
vacri wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that invading the territory of other nations and annexing it counts as involving yourself in the affairs of other nations. Historically, the US didn't want to interfere in Europe, absolutely, but it stuck its fingers in pretty much every other pie, excluding sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, how do you characterise sending warships to scare Japan into opening up for trade in 1868 as 'isolationism'?

Isolationism doesn't mean never projecting military power, it means not getting involved in alliances that don't serve, or barely serve our own interests. George Washington's farewell address addressed this: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, whic…

Your definition of isolationism makes no sense. The alliances that France had with the UK and Russia at the start of WWI served France's own interests, for example, yet France wouldn't be painted as isolationist. Countries make alliances that serve their own interest - how often do you see countries making alliances for net loss?

And despite you quoting several people including terms like "forbearing at all times, and in every way ... intervention and interference", I have already furnished you with more than a few examples of the US actively intervening and interfering. The US not only meddled a heap in the Americas, but also outside it's own area (like the Philippines and Japan, already mentioned). Neither does 'non-intervention' square with things like backing Cuba in a war of independence against Spain. That's the living, breathing definition of 'intervention'.

You seem to be missing my point that the US was politically isolationist with respect to Europe, but it wasn't isolationist outside of Europe.

> Afghanistan was for our own interests; we were attacked by a group sheltered by their government. Iraq was not. Syria is not. Balkans in the 1990s was not.

This is all total propaganda. Iraq was 100% in the US's interests (or perhaps better put, the incumbent government's interests), and the US fabricated a casus belli to invade, against the wishes of its allies, and with no quality intelligence. Syria is a leftover from the Iraq debacle; the US would lose considerable international reputation if it just shrugged and walked away from the consequences of the clusterfuck it caused in Iraq. There was no alliance requiring that the US invade unilaterally in the case of Iraq, and the consequences of that populist action are now tearing Europe apart. There is more to national interests than conquering territory and acts of military revenge.

If the US got itself involved in conflicts that weren't in its interests, then it'd be much more involved in sub-Saharan Africa. Or filling eastern Ukraine with gung-ho marines and reverting the annexation of Crimea. I don't expect any nation to act against its interests, but if people are going to persist with the myth that the US really is the 'world cop', then it's a corrupt cop who looks the other way when there's no kickback coming its way.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#208

Post by Thimothy »

woodandsteel wrote: post #144
caf wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power. Without that, the modern era would probably never have happened. That is because one state would have probably converted Europe into an empire, dominated by a single culture and religion, instead of the great competition of ideas and technologies that happened because there were so many independent states.

One could argue that the Europe of the many states only lead to the horrors and suffering of the world wars, while a multiculturaly diverse but politicaly uniform Europe, built by, say, Napoleon, could have been a United States of Europe. Not being a bunch of countries inflicted so many different nationalisms has worked pretty nicely for them.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#209

Post by restalis »

nickik wrote: post #186
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…

Crimean War was not limited at all. It was waged in way larger area than just Crimea, and here I mean not only the Black Sea surroundings. It also had a Baltic Sea, a White Sea and even a Pacific theater of war, with close to two million people involved directly. Although not as big as the entire chain of Napoleonic Wars before, it was major and extensive nevertheless.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#210

Post by restalis »

woodandsteel wrote: post #149
Animats wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One key difference nuclear weapons make is that it is much easier to see beforehand how catastrophic a war would be.

Mass destruction (chemical) weapons existed and were employed in WW1. You'd expect that WW2 should have consisted mostly by aerial bombardment with much improved chemical (and other kind of horribly effective) weapons, yet what happened was an abstinence from both sides, respecting a mutual agreement of resorting to conventional weapons only. (Well, on battlefields at least, and only if discounting U.S. show off with nuclear ones at a moment when the war's conclusion was clear already.)
Post reply on HN