Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars • Hacker News Board

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#121

Post by herewulf » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 10:47 PM UTC

veddox wrote: post #99

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…

I don't think you understand the extent of the distrust and resentment that existed between the French and the Germans. It goes back much further than 1871. You could probably go back to the Middle Ages, but let's start with Napoleon. His invasion of the German territories officially destroyed the last vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire. This, of course, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire any longer; but it di…

Great comment. I would only add to this:

> Napoleon's defeat, though a great relief to the rest of Europe, was a blow to the French pride. (As far as I am aware, he is still a national hero in France to this day.)

Yes, to this very day he has a tomb fit for an Emperor[0]. Established in 1861, only a short ten years before the Franco-Prussian War.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Invalides#Tombs

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#122

Post by herewulf » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 10:52 PM UTC

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…

Other comments have greatly expounded on this, but I would point out that 45 years isn't long if you figure that government and military leaders would have been in their 50's and 60's and would have had vivid memories of such a drastic event, even if they were too young to participate directly. They could have also lost older relatives in the fighting.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#123

Post by emanreus » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 10:54 PM UTC

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…

> two superpowers with nuclear overkill capability glaring at each other but not doing much.

Those glares killed a lot of people in proxy wars around the globe.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#124

Post by travmatt » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 10:57 PM UTC

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

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

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#125

Post by dragandj » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:05 PM UTC

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…

Austria didn't declare war against Serbs (the ethnic group), but it declared war and invaded Serbia (the country in which only a part of the ethnic group lived). Moreover, Gavrilo Princip wasn't even a citizen of Serbia but the citizen of Austria-Hungary, and the assassination wasn't sponsored by Serbia either.

An interesting data is that the invading Austrian army consisted in large part of ethnic Serbs from Bosnia that were serving in Austrian army.

Yes, Gavrilo Princip was a Serbian by ethnicity, like almost half of the population of Bosnia at the time, a then recently annexed province that was previously occupied by Ottoman Empire (Turkey). In fact, there probably was few ethnic Austrians in Bosnia, since Austria-Hungary was an Empire that simply treated Bosnia and many other similar regions as colonies. So, Gavrilo Princip was a member of an underground indigenous movement who was fighting the colonial power. It is debatable whether it is terrorism or not (one side's villains are the other side's heroes), but it is a historical fact that Serbia (the country) didn't instruct him, nor helped him, nor the assassination was in Serbia's interest. Simply put, the Austria was eyeing to invade Serbia for a long time before that, and used the assassination as a pretext for invasion that was going to happen sooner or later no matter what. Serbia accepted many outrageous Austrian demands, but Austria still invaded...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#126

Post by cardiffspaceman » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:07 PM UTC

georgemonck wrote: post #25

neaden wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

" That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies. " Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they cou…

Follow the money. The financial aspect of the war was interesting in itself, if you can bear finance as an intellectual subject at all. [1] I haven't studied this very deeply but of course the Morgans are involved. Modern wars (starting from around the 18th century) all involve a financial angle and though I feel that certain bankers were criticized for racist reasons, the assistance of bankers in providing and retiring war debt is important. I think it would be likely that my studies would end up supporting the idea that the American side was hoping to fund or supply that which could be conveniently funded or supplied without actually fighting.

[1]http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#127

Post by jsnell » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:08 PM UTC

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 start with for anyone who is interested in a history of WWI as a whole. (There are arguably better options for those just interested in the story of the slide into war, since that really needs a lot of space). The audiobook version is great too.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#128

Post by barrkel » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:12 PM UTC

hackuser wrote: post #117

vacri wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.

Sorry, my mistake. Message deleted.

We were talking about WWI, not WWII.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#129

Post by oblio » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:18 PM UTC

readittwice wrote: post #44

> Prussia had recently adopted a new model of rifle: one that was bolt action and so allowed for rapid fire, in comparison to the Austrians’ outmoded muzzle-loading Lorenz rifle-muskets. This really made a long-lasting impression, in Austria today (so 150 years later) we still use the phrase: "the prussians don't shoot that fast". We use it when there is still time and a solution isn't ready yet.

I'm guessing that the meaning is ironic?

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#130

Post by quirkafleeg » Wed, Apr 19, 2017, 11:20 PM UTC

veddox wrote: post #105

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…

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, everything the USA has been involved in stems from "1866". Or various British Acts of Union led to two world wars. Or the Magna Carta, or the French Revolution, or anything before 1914 that involved any of the participants.

Furthermore, even if we un-ironically believe "1866" led to the US cavalry riding to everyone's rescue in two world wars, that is the end result, not setting the stage.

I know some people love to believe everything must revolve around the USA, but trying to argue that the two greatest events of the 20th century actually stemmed from 19th century internal American politics that meant relatively little to Europeans even at the time seems pretty desperate.

[1] Before anyone downvotes for this interpretation of what he wrote, he literally states the following simplistic, insulting garbage about WWI (where US involvement was barely more than symbolic): "[the USA] would intervene to defeat Germany just in the nick of time".

I wonder how he feels about the USSR intervening to defeat Japan just in the nick of time in WWII.