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

31–40 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#31

Post by Synaesthesia »

huangc10 wrote: post #9

What's interesting to me here is that, it seems like a lot of the causes/triggers to WWI/WWII were due to conflicts between nations and/or assassinations. We don't necessarily have anything as big as 2 equal nations fighting, capitals getting invaded etc. So does that mean WWIII will probably never happen given that we don't have any of of these crazy causes/triggers?

We certainly have these triggers and it's possible! The Middle East is in chaos, and it's causing conflict between US and Russia, as well as the China-US conflict.

Europe has been fighting vicious wars for centuries, climaxing in WW2. What's kept Europe peaceful since WW2 is the realisation that if they go to war again they might destroy everything! WW 2 was enormously destructive. However the US was not destroyed as Europe was by war, so they have maybe not learned these lessons yet.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#32

Post by jordanpg »

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

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#33

Post by llukas »

neaden wrote: post #30
whack wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford…

Are you serious? Invading a neutral country, burning the the entire village of Louvain, executing 6,000 civilians in reprisal strikes were all things Germany was forced into doing? Belgium actively tried to German soldiers because they were being invaded! That's a reasonable response to being invaded! I have no idea how you can write something like this.

What Germans did in Belgium is inexcusable.

However, knowing what Belgians did in Africa in XIX/XX century I do not have much pity for them.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#35

Post by kristianc »

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

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.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#36

Post by bluejekyll »

So, I had always learned that the American Civil war was a foreshadowing of WWI, both the high number of casualties, and the entrenchment which was being utilized by the end of the Civil War... I knew about the Austro-Prussian and the Franco-Prussian Wars, but I didn't know about the casualties, OMG:

> Total casualties in killed, wounded, and missing broke 100,000, with Austrian losses nearly doubling those of the Prussians.

In two months of fighting? That's crazy, and at a 1-2 rate, definitely the end of the muzzle-loaded rifle.

> Combined casualties from the combatants (killed, wounded, missing) neared the 1 million mark.

In 9 months of fighting? That's insane. Those numbers far exceed the American Civil War, which was Approx. 650,000 for the entire four years. It should have been obvious to both France and Germany that WWI was going to be much much more deadly, they both had directly experienced it a generation before. It's sad this didn't give them pause.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#37

Post by mamon »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #31
huangc10 wrote: post #9

What's interesting to me here is that, it seems like a lot of the causes/triggers to WWI/WWII were due to conflicts between nations and/or assassinations. We don't necessarily have anything as big as 2 equal nations fighting, capitals getting invaded etc. So does that mean WWIII will probably never happen given that we don't have any of of these crazy causes/triggers?

We certainly have these triggers and it's possible! The Middle East is in chaos, and it's causing conflict between US and Russia, as well as the China-US conflict. Europe has been fighting vicious wars for centuries, climaxing in WW2. What's kept Europe peaceful since WW2 is the realisation that if they go to war again they might destroy everything! WW 2 was enormously destructive. However the US was not destroyed as…

Yeah, the only thing that US learned from WW1 and WW2 is that wars can be a great way to make money. Since then most of the wars that US started was due to economic reasons: either to control some valuable natural resources, like oil, or to punish the countries that refused to make business with them.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#38

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#39

Post by WalterBright »

jimmyk wrote: post #6

And it meant that there was a precedence for taking up arms for equality and freedom...for a war that would, "make the world safe for democracy," as President Woodrow Wilson put it in 1917 when he requested a declaration of war on the German Empire. What was the German Empire doing to threaten equality, freedom, and democracy that France and England and the US weren't also doing? The argument that the US entered beca…

The recent PBS series "The Great War" goes into considerable detail about the forces that influenced America into siding with England and France. Well worth watching.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#40

Post by WesleyLivesay »

bluejekyll wrote: post #36

So, I had always learned that the American Civil war was a foreshadowing of WWI, both the high number of casualties, and the entrenchment which was being utilized by the end of the Civil War... I knew about the Austro-Prussian and the Franco-Prussian Wars, but I didn't know about the casualties, OMG: > Total casualties in killed, wounded, and missing broke 100,000, with Austrian losses nearly doubling those of the Pr…

I think they are erroneously including the number of men captured in the Franco-Prussian number. They aren't sharing sources for this article so it is hard to know but Wikipedia (which does source the number) lists 475,000 of that million number as prisoners of war that probably survived the war and were repatriated.
Post reply on HN