Political Crossfire Forums

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: That doesn't even BEGIN to cover the wars that Europeans raged on countries outside of Europe. Wars like the Boer War, the French and Indian Wars, the Opium wars, The Boxer rebellion, the Sikh wars.... I could go on and on. Almost every time they colonized someplace there was a war.


I would strongly suggest brushing up on your Asian history for the same period

[Melcar]

ubikk wrote: Quote: That's an incredibly simplistic view of history. Europeans weren't the only warlike people, or even the most warlike.
Read up about Shaka, King of the Zulus or Ghengis Khan. Non-Europeans who were infamous for their brutality and wars of conquest which exceeded that of any European with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler........

Shaka Zulu and Ghengis Khan only lived 1 lifetime. Europeans fought each other for almost 2000 years:

Ever hear of the 100 years war? How about Hastings? Crecy? Calais? Agincourt? Castillon? The battle of Kosovo Field (1300s)? War of the Roses? The Italian Wars (14-1500s)? The English Civil Wars (17th Century), Russo-Turkish Wars (1700 - 1850)? The Thirty Years War? The Crimean War? The War of Austrian Secession? The 1st and 2nd Silesian Wars? The Seven Years War? How about the Ten Years War? The French Revolutionary Wars? The Spanish Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Greek-Ottoman War? The Austro-Prussian War? Then we have the Franco-Prussian War, The Romanian-Turkish War, The First Balkan Wars which eventually led to WWI. After that there was the Russian Civil War, The Irish Civil War, The Finnish-Russian War and WWII. The Armenian Genocide, the Soviet Purgings where millions died, Then there were a few wars where the Soviets invaded Eastern European countries, like Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Then there was the last Serbo-Croation war in Kosovo.

And that's not evan all of them... Ah, I forgot the Crusades! all 3 of them as the French, British and Hessians sacked Constantinople (a Christian city, mind you) on the way to Jeruselem....

That doesn't even BEGIN to cover the wars that Europeans raged on countries outside of Europe. Wars like the Boer War, the French and Indian Wars, the Opium wars, The Boxer rebellion, the Sikh wars.... I could go on and on. Almost every time they colonized someplace there was a war.

Just Hitler, eh? :wink:

I dunno about that...

There have bee just as many conflicts in the whole of Asia, and just as bloody.

[thundertaker]

ubikk wrote: Quote: That's an incredibly simplistic view of history. Europeans weren't the only warlike people, or even the most warlike.
Read up about Shaka, King of the Zulus or Ghengis Khan. Non-Europeans who were infamous for their brutality and wars of conquest which exceeded that of any European with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler........

Shaka Zulu and Ghengis Khan only lived 1 lifetime. Europeans fought each other for almost 2000 years:

Ever hear of the 100 years war? How about Hastings? Crecy? Calais? Agincourt? Castillon? The battle of Kosovo Field (1300s)? War of the Roses? The Italian Wars (14-1500s)? The English Civil Wars (17th Century), Russo-Turkish Wars (1700 - 1850)? The Thirty Years War? The Crimean War? The War of Austrian Secession? The 1st and 2nd Silesian Wars? The Seven Years War? How about the Ten Years War? The French Revolutionary Wars? The Spanish Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Greek-Ottoman War? The Austro-Prussian War? Then we have the Franco-Prussian War, The Romanian-Turkish War, The First Balkan Wars which eventually led to WWI. After that there was the Russian Civil War, The Irish Civil War, The Finnish-Russian War and WWII. The Armenian Genocide, the Soviet Purgings where millions died, Then there were a few wars where the Soviets invaded Eastern European countries, like Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Then there was the last Serbo-Croation war in Kosovo.

These are relatively well known because A) popular history is very Euro-Centric, and B) Europeans were very good at recording events and writing them down.
Are you seriously suggesting that tribal conflict in Africa is a recent phenomenon? The only reason we know about Shaka's wars is because it happened in the early 19th century, when Europeans were becoming involved in Africa.
As for Asia, read up on the Mongolians (the Khans), the wars in China, such as the Yellow Scarves rebellion, Hell it was a Chinaman called Sun Tsu who wrote 'The Art of War'. The Taiping Rebellion of 1851-1864 was actually the world's bloodiest war up until the second world war, with 20 million dead.
The there's the Japanese and the Sengoku Jidai period, the golden age of the Samauri, in which Japan was at war with itself for over 100 years.
The asians (especially the chinese) throughout history make Europeans look like amateurs when it comes to war.

Quote: And that's not evan all of them... Ah, I forgot the Crusades! all 3 of them as the French, British and Hessians sacked Constantinople (a Christian city, mind you) on the way to Jeruselem....

The fourth crusade (were constantinople was sacked) was fought mostly by the venetians, who wanted to destroy the Byzantine Empire as a trade rival in the mediteranian. The French and ENGLISH (Britain did not exist at this time as a political entity) had little to do with it, although I'm sure there were mercenaries and pious pilgrims serving in the army of Venice from those countries.


Quote: That doesn't even BEGIN to cover the wars that Europeans raged on countries outside of Europe. Wars like the Boer War, the French and Indian Wars, the Opium wars, The Boxer rebellion, the Sikh wars.... I could go on and on. Almost every time they colonized someplace there was a war.


That's often the nature of Empires. It was the same with the Chinese Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Empire of the Horde and various other non-european empires throughout history. However, the age of 19th century imperialism is much closer to us for the most part. Some of us even knew people who were alive back in the day.....

[ubikk]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: That doesn't even BEGIN to cover the wars that Europeans raged on countries outside of Europe. Wars like the Boer War, the French and Indian Wars, the Opium wars, The Boxer rebellion, the Sikh wars.... I could go on and on. Almost every time they colonized someplace there was a war.


I would strongly suggest brushing up on your Asian history for the same period

I have. By comparison, there was rarely anything on the scale of the European conflicts that went on in Asia it was more localized and of a smaller scale. Europe had a lot of small localized fighting as well. In Europe there was always fighting, for exmaple, in Western Europe, fighting went on among the kingdoms where Germany is today, the Picts, Celts, the Saxons and the Norse as well went raiding back and forth on their neighbors for centuries. The Chinese Dynasties had some fighting but if you look at the big picture they were rather peaceful by comparison.

The only thing that might compare are the Moors, who colonized Northern Africa and fought up into Spain until they were expelled. Even they didn't have the vast armadas and heavier weapons that Europe became fond of and never the worldwide reach of the European imperialists.

[ubikk]

Quote: The fourth crusade (were constantinople was sacked) was fought mostly by the venetians, who wanted to destroy the Byzantine Empire as a trade rival in the mediteranian. The French and ENGLISH (Britain did not exist at this time as a political entity) had little to do with it, although I'm sure there were mercenaries and pious pilgrims serving in the army of Venice from those countries.

I stand corrected. I forgot about the 4th Crusade. Still, it shows you how Europeans always fought with each other, principally for economic reasons.

Quote: It was the same with the Chinese Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Empire of the Horde and various other non-european empires throughout history.

Yes, but even there, the Eastern empires never had the absolute depth of fighting that went on for years and years and years. There were periods of relative peace.

[thundertaker]

ubikk wrote:

I have. By comparison, there was rarely anything on the scale of the European conflicts that went on in Asia it was more localized and of a smaller scale.

Bollocks...

http://experts.about.com/e/t/ta/Taiping_Rebellion.htm

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/civil_n2/histscript6_n2/golden.html

Quote: Europe had a lot of small localized fighting as well. In Europe there was always fighting, for exmaple, in Western Europe, fighting went on among the kingdoms where Germany is today, the Picts, Celts, the Saxons and the Norse as well went raiding back and forth on their neighbors for centuries. The Chinese Dynasties had some fighting but if you look at the big picture they were rather peaceful by comparison.

Once again I call bollocks. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the second and third centuries AD were on a scale unmatched at the time and unsurpassed for centuries afterwards..

http://www.answers.com/topic/three-kingdoms

Quote: The only thing that might compare are the Moors, who colonized Northern Africa and fought up into Spain until they were expelled. Even they didn't have the vast armadas and heavier weapons that Europe became fond of and never the worldwide reach of the European imperialists.

The Muslims who originated in Arabia managed to carve out a Caliphate which stretched from Spain in the West to India in the East. Although it wasn't ruled by one ruler, it wasquite large as Empires go.
This idea that White people invented war, aggression and imperialism is quite frankly, crap. Sun Tzu was writing about how to forge Empires and wage war using advanced strategy, logistics and tactics whilest most European's notion of warfare didn't extend beyond getting a posse together armed with clubs to go and raid the next village when stockpiles were low.........

[antonio62]

thundertaker wrote: I'm not sure it was a case of everybody being desperate to go to war, more a case of events forcing everybody into it.
When the Black Hand murdered the Archduke, the Hapsberg government rightly or wrongly believed the Serbian government of being responsible for sponsoring the assasination. The Serbs had been responsible for for stirring up nationalist sentiment in the multi-ethnic Hapsberg Empire for many years, and this gave the Austro-Hungarian Empire a casus belli for removing a thorn that had been in their side for a while. The Germans supported their allies in this.
However, Russia was pledged to defend their brother Slavs, and began to mobilise it's huge army to defend Serbia. However, The Russians were in an alliance with France, Germany's old enemy, and mobiling the largest army in Europe was perceived as a threat to the security of the Kaisereich, which meant that Germany in turn declared war on Russia and began to mobilise it's army in turn.
France, which as has been previously mentioned, was an old enemy of Germany. This dated back the formation of the Kaisereich in 1871, when France was humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war and had the provinces of Alscace and Lorraine taken from them as part of the peace treaty, and Germany feared (perhaps rightly) that France was just waiting for a chance to be able to take them back.
Consequently, Germany had already made a contingency plan, called the Schliefflen Plan (after the army officer who created it) for such an eventuality at the turn of the century, which envisaged knocking France out quickly before the Russians could finnish mobilising, so that the Germans would not have to face fighting a war on two fronts.
However, this plan envisaged invading France via Belgium in order to flank France's defences on the Alsation border, Britain had signed a treaty with Belgium in 1839 which, guranteed Beglian neutrality, and was obliged under it's terms to defend Belgium from the German aggressors.
For Britain, the treaty merely provided a casus belli for them to go to war to prevent Germany from becoming the dominant power on the continent. Germany had surpassed Britain as an economic power in the 1890s, and was begining to catch up with Britain as a Naval power.

The other countries joined in later when they thought it was in their percieved interests to do so. Italy joined the war on the allied side in 1915 in order to gain territory from Austria-Hungary, Portugal, which joined the allies in 1916, was traditionally friendly towards the British, and hoped to expand it's imperial holdings at Germany's expense, America joined the war in 1917 due in part to the machinations of the Anglophilic american establishment (especially President Woodrow Wilson, who was himself half English), and by the German's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare on it's ships, and so on.

That's how the the world got plunged into the first world war in a nutshell. I wouldn't say they were especially eager to go to war, but perhaps they would have tried harder with diplomacy if they had any inkling at how awful the war would be due to technological developments since the last European war.....

At the start all the nations wanted war with someone. Russia wanted to form a pan Slavic state and gain access to warm water ports. Austria wanted war with Serbia to help keep their empire together and crush an increasingly powerful rival. France wanted revenge for the Franco-Prussian war. Britain wanted war to elimenate Germany's naval threat. Germany wanted more colonies, more power etc. The other nations who joined later had their own reasons for wanting war.

[The_Right_Honourable]

thundertaker wrote: ubikk wrote:

I have. By comparison, there was rarely anything on the scale of the European conflicts that went on in Asia it was more localized and of a smaller scale.

Bollocks...

http://experts.about.com/e/t/ta/Taiping_Rebellion.htm

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/civil_n2/histscript6_n2/golden.html

Quote: Europe had a lot of small localized fighting as well. In Europe there was always fighting, for exmaple, in Western Europe, fighting went on among the kingdoms where Germany is today, the Picts, Celts, the Saxons and the Norse as well went raiding back and forth on their neighbors for centuries. The Chinese Dynasties had some fighting but if you look at the big picture they were rather peaceful by comparison.

Once again I call bollocks. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the second and third centuries AD were on a scale unmatched at the time and unsurpassed for centuries afterwards..

http://www.answers.com/topic/three-kingdoms

Quote: The only thing that might compare are the Moors, who colonized Northern Africa and fought up into Spain until they were expelled. Even they didn't have the vast armadas and heavier weapons that Europe became fond of and never the worldwide reach of the European imperialists.

The Muslims who originated in Arabia managed to carve out a Caliphate which stretched from Spain in the West to India in the East. Although it wasn't ruled by one ruler, it wasquite large as Empires go.
This idea that White people invented war, aggression and imperialism is quite frankly, crap. Sun Tzu was writing about how to forge Empires and wage war using advanced strategy, logistics and tactics whilest most European's notion of warfare didn't extend beyond getting a posse together armed with clubs to go and raid the next village when stockpiles were low.........

I agree. I dont know what creates these self hating westerners who seem to have this dillusion that europeans are brutal and evil... they often seem to be american aswell...

[Jimz]

What happened was that political, military, and economic power shifted dramatically away from the traditional European powers such as England, France, and Germany, and, almost by default, became vested in the United States. World War I was the major act which catapulted the U.S. into a dominant position as a world leader. The U.S. did its' best to minimize its's power role through the 1920's and the era of the Great Depression, but ultimately was forced to assert leadership during and after World War II. But, the roots of rising U.S. prominence on the world scene can be traced back to the period of imperialist expansion during the 1890's and early 1900's through World War I.

ThotsNRamblins

[Fido]

Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

[Melcar]

Fido wrote: Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

What I find interesting is that if someone asks about WWII he/she will most likely get tons of well thought out responses. Why the lack of interest for WWI?

[The Comrade]

Melcar wrote: Fido wrote: Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

What I find interesting is that if someone asks about WWII he/she will most likely get tons of well thought out responses. Why the lack of interest for WWI?

all wars are over shadowed by world war two.

[Quicksurf]

Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Try a little magic tool called Wikipedia. :wink:

To put it in very simple terms (I mean very simple terms), WWI was sparked by the assasination of Ferdenand, which led many countries to go to war because of alliances.

Europe was going through a period of very strong nationalism as well.

[Quicksurf]

Melcar wrote: Fido wrote: Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

What I find interesting is that if someone asks about WWII he/she will most likely get tons of well thought out responses. Why the lack of interest for WWI?

It was a rather stupid and pointless war that was based soley off politics rather than ideological differences between two groups of people. In a sense, there really wasn't a "bad guy" or good guy.

[Quicksurf]

thundertaker wrote: ubikk wrote:

Europe was about the most warlike culture in the world for millenia. All they did was fight each other all the time and invade other countries. They slaughtered and enslaved native populations and took their gold. They finally stopped fighting when someone invented the A-bomb and they got scared. They've only been at relative peace for about 60 years if you don't count Kosovo and various incursions by the Soviets into Eastern Europe. Americans are decendants of this culture, and we're still blowing people up to show how tough we are. Now we're after oil instead of gold.

That's an incredibly simplistic view of history. Europeans weren't the only warlike people, or even the most warlike.
Read up about Shaka, King of the Zulus or Ghengis Khan. Non-Europeans who were infamous for their brutality and wars of conquest which exceeded that of any European with the possible exception of Adolf Hitler........

Agreed, in fact I would say that ancient Asian civilizations participated in warfare much more than modern Europe. The reason Europe has a bad credibility was because of their imperialistic policies, (mainly toward Africa) during the 19th century.

[The Comrade]

Quicksurf wrote: Melcar wrote: Fido wrote: Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

What I find interesting is that if someone asks about WWII he/she will most likely get tons of well thought out responses. Why the lack of interest for WWI?

It was a rather stupid and pointless war that was based soley off politics rather than ideological differences between two groups of people. In a sense, there really wasn't a "bad guy" or good guy.


russian involvment was loosely based on ethnic backgrounds. austria was just a son of a b****. germany was land hungry. france was spiteful. and england didn't want ANYONE out gunning them. italy was also land hungry.

so everyone was the bad guy pretty much.

[Quicksurf]

The Comrade wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Melcar wrote: Fido wrote: Benvolio wrote: what happened there, it seems that nobody can give a clear answer about the WW1. All i've heard is some crap about a prince and Europe, can anyone shed some light on the current situation?

Its sort of old news, but somebody won and everybody lost, and lots and lots of people died and everyone went home exhausted to get ready for the next big crap shoot. And dat's the troof!

What I find interesting is that if someone asks about WWII he/she will most likely get tons of well thought out responses. Why the lack of interest for WWI?

It was a rather stupid and pointless war that was based soley off politics rather than ideological differences between two groups of people. In a sense, there really wasn't a "bad guy" or good guy.


russian involvment was loosely based on ethnic backgrounds. austria was just a son of a b****. germany was land hungry. france was spiteful. and england didn't want ANYONE out gunning them. italy was also land hungry.

so everyone was the bad guy pretty much.

Agreed.

[Wizard From Oz]

Okay let me have a crack at this. I will keep the undelying politics out of it. Or we will be here for hours.

June 28 1914 - Duke Ferdinand is assisinated in Serbia

July 23 1914 - The Austro-Hungarian empire demand crushing retribution for the attack

July 25 1914 - To everyones suprise Serbia give in to Austrias demand.

July 28 1914 - Austria - encouraged by support from Germany attacks anyway.

July 31 1914 Russia mobilse in defense of Serbia. Austria mobilises in response to Russian actions

August 1 1914 Germany declares war on Russia. Belgium and France also mobilise

August 2 1914 Germany demands free passage through Belgium.

August 3 1914 Belgium rejects the request. France and Germany declare war on each other

August 4th Britian declares war on Germany.

Also on August 4th Sir Edward Grey uttered the immortal words. "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"

Why do I suddenly have this overwhelming sense that I will see history repeat itself?

[mendosan]

MG1962 wrote: Okay let me have a crack at this. I will keep the undelying politics out of it. Or we will be here for hours.

June 28 1914 - Duke Ferdinand is assisinated in Serbia

July 23 1914 - The Austro-Hungarian empire demand crushing retribution for the attack

July 25 1914 - To everyones suprise Serbia give in to Austrias demand.

July 28 1914 - Austria - encouraged by support from Germany attacks anyway.

July 31 1914 Russia mobilse in defense of Serbia. Austria mobilises in response to Russian actions

August 1 1914 Germany declares war on Russia. Belgium and France also mobilise

August 2 1914 Germany demands free passage through Belgium.

August 3 1914 Belgium rejects the request. France and Germany declare war on each other

August 4th Britian declares war on Germany.

Also on August 4th Sir Edward Grey uttered the immortal words. "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"

Why do I suddenly have this overwhelming sense that I will see history repeat itself?

What in Europe?

[The Comrade]

MG1962 wrote: Okay let me have a crack at this. I will keep the undelying politics out of it. Or we will be here for hours.

June 28 1914 - Duke Ferdinand is assisinated in Serbia

July 23 1914 - The Austro-Hungarian empire demand crushing retribution for the attack

July 25 1914 - To everyones suprise Serbia give in to Austrias demand.

July 28 1914 - Austria - encouraged by support from Germany attacks anyway.

July 31 1914 Russia mobilse in defense of Serbia. Austria mobilises in response to Russian actions

August 1 1914 Germany declares war on Russia. Belgium and France also mobilise

August 2 1914 Germany demands free passage through Belgium.

August 3 1914 Belgium rejects the request. France and Germany declare war on each other

August 4th Britian declares war on Germany.

Also on August 4th Sir Edward Grey uttered the immortal words. "The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime"

Why do I suddenly have this overwhelming sense that I will see history repeat itself?

serbia agreed to every point but one.


but that doesn't excuse austria-hungary for being a bastard.