World War One

AuthorMessage
Maiku's Kind Ghost
King For A Couple Of Days
Maiku's Kind Ghost
Age: -
Gender: -
Posts: 2102

Mibba
February 23rd, 2007 at 08:37am
I have come to conclusion that it was one of the most unneeded wars in the history. The total number of casualties (those killed, wounded, MIA) was 37,508,686. The three countries that suffered the most casualties where Russia (9,150,000),Germany(7,142,558 ) and Austria-Hungary (7,020,000)
The first use of Biological warfare was used in this war with the introduction of Chlorine Gas in April of 1915, some two years before it’s more famous counterpart, mustard gas was used. During a Chlorine gas attack, with out the use of a gas mask, the persons attacked would asphyxiate.
Trench warfare is in of itself a vary ineffective type of warfare. It’s extremely easy for a stalemate to happen and the per capita ground winning per battle is only a few miles. Aside form that, the living conditions in the trenches where deplorable. Dysentery, Body lice, “Trench Foot,” and a effect of Trench Foot if it went untreated-gangrene were rampant.
One of the effects the war had on the soldiers was Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder or Shell Shock. Caused mostly by exposer to heavy artillery fire. It’s symptoms included shaking and tremors Flashbacks and Depression.
One of the more infamous names for this war is “The War to End All War”. Which, ironically is farthest from the truth. Just about every conflict that has occurred in the last 90 years where in someway caused by this one. The most obvious is World War Two. But even the two that fallowed, Korea and Vietnam, are directly linked to WWI in the fact that in 1917, due to a ression caused by it’s involment in the War, Russia’s Monarchy was overthrown by the Socialist Party. This later attributed to the spread of communism, the cold war, anti-communist sentiment and communist occupation of Asian countries which is the basic reason for Korea and Vietnam.
All of this was a build up to my final statment. World War One was at it’s heart, caused by the assassination of one man. Other factors like Nationalism and Militarism are in fact, just the bullets in barrel of the gun. A single man was killed. And That in effect led to the killing and mangling of 37,508,686 men over four years time. What if the same thing happened when( for example) JFK was shot? What type of world would we be living in? that is, of corse, if there even would be a world for us to live in?



I don't really need to state my opinion seprately since I've allready done that with in the post



(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm)
peeingchicken
Geek
peeingchicken
Age: -
Gender: Male
Posts: 177
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:08am
i want a peacful world
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
February 23rd, 2007 at 03:30pm
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
rehabreject
Jackass
rehabreject
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1308
February 23rd, 2007 at 05:52pm
spill_no_sick:
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
You mean staying conveniently neutral until there is actual danger towards your own country, then entering the war one year before its end?
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
February 23rd, 2007 at 06:06pm
Completely unnecessary. All those countries just had big new weapons and wanted to test them out. Rolling Eyes
Flaming Phalanges!
Basket Case
Flaming Phalanges!
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 17669
February 23rd, 2007 at 06:19pm
rehabreject:
spill_no_sick:
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
You mean staying conveniently neutral until there is actual danger towards your own country, then entering the war one year before its end?


Five

Americans aren't the heroes they all think they are. They hide behind big guns, and I know this doesn't have anything to do with world war one, but more British troops in Iraq have been killed by Americans than Iraqis, due to friendly fire. Not that any sort of fire is friendly, especially if it's coming right at you. But think on that for a bit, yeah?

I thoroughly recommend watching 'Churchill: The Hollywood Years'. Definitely shows the warped view that many Americans have of themselves.
Robbie
Falling In Love With The Board
Robbie
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9947
February 23rd, 2007 at 06:47pm
Maiku's Requiem:
I have come to conclusion that it was one of the most unneeded wars in the history. The total number of casualties (those killed, wounded, MIA) was 37,508,686. The three countries that suffered the most casualties where Russia (9,150,000),Germany(7,142,558 ) and Austria-Hungary (7,020,000)
The first use of Biological warfare was used in this war with the introduction of Chlorine Gas in April of 1915, some two years before it’s more famous counterpart, mustard gas was used. During a Chlorine gas attack, with out the use of a gas mask, the persons attacked would asphyxiate.
Trench warfare is in of itself a vary ineffective type of warfare. It’s extremely easy for a stalemate to happen and the per capita ground winning per battle is only a few miles. Aside form that, the living conditions in the trenches where deplorable. Dysentery, Body lice, “Trench Foot,” and a effect of Trench Foot if it went untreated-gangrene were rampant.
One of the effects the war had on the soldiers was Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder or Shell Shock. Caused mostly by exposer to heavy artillery fire. It’s symptoms included shaking and tremors Flashbacks and Depression.
One of the more infamous names for this war is “The War to End All War”. Which, ironically is farthest from the truth. Just about every conflict that has occurred in the last 90 years where in someway caused by this one. The most obvious is World War Two. But even the two that fallowed, Korea and Vietnam, are directly linked to WWI in the fact that in 1917, due to a ression caused by it’s involment in the War, Russia’s Monarchy was overthrown by the Socialist Party. This later attributed to the spread of communism, the cold war, anti-communist sentiment and communist occupation of Asian countries which is the basic reason for Korea and Vietnam.
All of this was a build up to my final statment. World War One was at it’s heart, caused by the assassination of one man. Other factors like Nationalism and Militarism are in fact, just the bullets in barrel of the gun. A single man was killed. And That in effect led to the killing and mangling of 37,508,686 men over four years time. What if the same thing happened when( for example) JFK was shot? What type of world would we be living in? that is, of corse, if there even would be a world for us to live in?



I don't really need to state my opinion seprately since I've allready done that with in the post



(http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm)


Your point?

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his wife) was not the cause of the war, the same way lighting the touch paper on an explosive does not cause the resulting explosion. God knows what would have happened if tension had quietly reached breaking point for the next 30 years and then we blew each other to shreds.

Militarism is simply countries keeping up with each other in the arms race as a deterrent. It doesn't always work, but if it wasn't for the arms race the allies would have folded instantly.
Kurtni
Admin
Kurtni
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 34289

Mibba Blog
February 23rd, 2007 at 06:50pm
rehabreject:
spill_no_sick:
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
You mean staying conveniently neutral until there is actual danger towards your own country, then entering the war one year before its end?

Why do you think the war ended when it did? You seriously don't think the war would have been uneffected if the US hadn't stepped in do you? And Im pretty sure he meant stepped in. He didn't need to elaborate as to when and why the US stepped in, that isn't relevant to the end of the war. If he had been replying to someone talking about why countries had become involved then maybe he would have said something to that effect. It isn't like he said the US was this great big hero who won the war by themselves and were doing so in a selfless action to aid other countries. No kidding they entered when it effected them, no one was argueing with that, the point hadn't even been brought up.
Ol' Blue Eyes.
King For A Couple Of Days
Ol' Blue Eyes.
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 4816

Mibba
February 23rd, 2007 at 07:04pm
Flaming Phalanges!:
rehabreject:
spill_no_sick:
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
You mean staying conveniently neutral until there is actual danger towards your own country, then entering the war one year before its end?


Five

Americans aren't the heroes they all think they are. They hide behind big guns, and I know this doesn't have anything to do with world war one, but more British troops in Iraq have been killed by Americans than Iraqis, due to friendly fire. Not that any sort of fire is friendly, especially if it's coming right at you. But think on that for a bit, yeah?

I thoroughly recommend watching 'Churchill: The Hollywood Years'. Definitely shows the warped view that many Americans have of themselves.
Idon't know what my country is attempting to accomplish in Iraq, honestly.

I love my country, but I agree that we aren't heros.
NeoSteph
Basket Case
NeoSteph
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 16494

Mibba Blog
February 23rd, 2007 at 07:17pm
Okay let me clear up the confusion as to the start of WW1 one because if you seriously think it was because of one man's death then you are horribly misinformed.

The events of july-august 1914 are known at the treaty alliance system it's a common case of one thing leading to another the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the boiling point in a long line of events, it is not the cause.

It set the next events but mass war was going to be a factor at the start of century either way it was just a case of countries taking the oppurtunity to build up restitance leading to the arms race.

The austro-hungarian government deliberated for three weeks before wanting revenge on serbia suggesting that their government had a hand in the assistnations (something that still unfounded but appears unlikely) The offered serbia and ultimatum which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty.

The idea was that serbia would defy the terms thus allowing austro-hungary to attack. allowing them to take control of the balkan...something they wanted to do for a long time


okay this little bullet point thin explains it all.


One Thing Led to Another

So then, we have the following remarkable sequence of events that led inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before the coming of the conflict.

Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.


Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.


Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August.


France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.


Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.


With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.


United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.


Japan, honouring a military agreement with Britain, declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responded by declaring war on Japan.


Italy, although allied to both Germany and Austria-Hungary, was able to avoid entering the fray by citing a clause enabling it to evade its obligations to both.

In short, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary only in the event of a 'defensive' war; arguing that their actions were 'offensive' she declared instead a policy of neutrality. The following year, in May 1915, she finally joined the conflict by siding with the Allies against her two former allies.

--------

So either way the train of events were going to happen, the assination was an excuse to get the ball rolling the heir was not even like by the austro-hungarian government.
Names are stupid!
Jackass
Names are stupid!
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1422
February 23rd, 2007 at 07:36pm
peeingchicken:
i want a peacful world

if there was peace in the world then there is no point on living because there would be nothing to argue about and so on...
Flaming Phalanges!
Basket Case
Flaming Phalanges!
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 17669
February 23rd, 2007 at 07:40pm
Ha Ha! You're Dead!:
peeingchicken:
i want a peacful world

if there was peace in the world then there is no point on living because there would be nothing to argue about and so on...


Not so much arguing about, but there would be nothing worth fighting for.
Names are stupid!
Jackass
Names are stupid!
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1422
February 23rd, 2007 at 07:54pm
Flaming Phalanges!:
Ha Ha! You're Dead!:
peeingchicken:
i want a peacful world

if there was peace in the world then there is no point on living because there would be nothing to argue about and so on...


Not so much arguing about, but there would be nothing worth fighting for.

that's how you say it....
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
February 23rd, 2007 at 09:00pm
WeFoundTheDuck:
Flaming Phalanges!:
rehabreject:
spill_no_sick:
it wasn't needed at all
Germany was retarded and went behind all these countrie's backs
and all in all the U.S. stepped in to end it
and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since
You mean staying conveniently neutral until there is actual danger towards your own country, then entering the war one year before its end?


Five

Americans aren't the heroes they all think they are. They hide behind big guns, and I know this doesn't have anything to do with world war one, but more British troops in Iraq have been killed by Americans than Iraqis, due to friendly fire. Not that any sort of fire is friendly, especially if it's coming right at you. But think on that for a bit, yeah?

I thoroughly recommend watching 'Churchill: The Hollywood Years'. Definitely shows the warped view that many Americans have of themselves.
Idon't know what my country is attempting to accomplish in Iraq, honestly.

I love my country, but I agree that we aren't heros.


"and people bitch about the U.S. stepping in to try to end something
and we've been doing that ever since"
we look at history to observe the present
they bitched about us entering WWI
we actually stopped it (I believe Woodrow Wilson is to thank, I also believe today is his death day but I don't feel like looking that up)
they bitched at us entering WWII
if you have any gay, Jewish, handicapped, or friends who enjoy the freedom of speech, I think they'd be glad we stepped in
in the eighties they bitched at us for trying to help Mexico out
they're almost a developed country
in 2004 everyone turned anti-Bush and bitched at us for trying to take down major terrorist organizations, stop Saddam Hussein, and steer the Iraqi people from everyone becoming a totalitarian state again
now, I don't think democracy was the right answer just like killing thousands of people in WWI and WWII was the right answer
but dammit, I think in fifty years when all the dust has settled we'll realize that only 3,000 American troops died in this war and we did a good thing

and Osama's probably dead, if not he won't try anything again so I'm not worried about us not finding him

(p.s. we found WMDs, they weren't as massive as we thought, but it shows evidence of more massive weapons that are still hidden, they're surface soon enough

pss I'll try to get back on topic now
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
February 23rd, 2007 at 09:07pm
NeoSteph:
Okay let me clear up the confusion as to the start of WW1 one because if you seriously think it was because of one man's death then you are horribly misinformed.

The events of july-august 1914 are known at the treaty alliance system it's a common case of one thing leading to another the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the boiling point in a long line of events, it is not the cause.

It set the next events but mass war was going to be a factor at the start of century either way it was just a case of countries taking the oppurtunity to build up restitance leading to the arms race.

The austro-hungarian government deliberated for three weeks before wanting revenge on serbia suggesting that their government had a hand in the tassistnations (something that still unfounded but appears unlikely) The offered serbia and ultimatum which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty.

The idea was that serbia would defy the terms thus allowing austro-hungary to attack. allowing them to take control of the balkan...something they wanted to do for a long time


okay this little bullet point thin explains it all.


One Thing Led to Another

So then, we have the following remarkable sequence of events that led inexorably to the 'Great War' - a name that had been touted even before the coming of the conflict.

Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.


Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete.


Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary by treaty, viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August.


France, bound by treaty to Russia, found itself at war against Germany and, by extension, on Austria-Hungary following a German declaration on 3 August. Germany was swift in invading neutral Belgium so as to reach Paris by the shortest possible route.


Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.


With Britain's entry into the war, her colonies and dominions abroad variously offered military and financial assistance, and included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa.


United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.


Japan, honouring a military agreement with Britain, declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. Two days later Austria-Hungary responded by declaring war on Japan.


Italy, although allied to both Germany and Austria-Hungary, was able to avoid entering the fray by citing a clause enabling it to evade its obligations to both.

In short, Italy was committed to defend Germany and Austria-Hungary only in the event of a 'defensive' war; arguing that their actions were 'offensive' she declared instead a policy of neutrality. The following year, in May 1915, she finally joined the conflict by siding with the Allies against her two former allies.

--------

So either way the train of events were going to happen, the assination was an excuse to get the ball rolling the heir was not even like by the austro-hungarian government.
the spark was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (I bet if I searched this on wikipedia I could predict what everyone here is talking about, because it seems they all get it from the same source, but I'm too lazy so I'll go from memory)
the fact that militarism was ruling Europe was the main cause, the fact that most people at the time didn't even know the concept of war, seeing as they were trying to prevent war and that lasted about thirty years, strong nationalism of countries was what supplied the world with millions of casualties, and allies and the fact Germany went behind everyone's backs contributed
but a barrel of gun powder is only as dangerous as the lit match falling on it
Maiku's Kind Ghost
King For A Couple Of Days
Maiku's Kind Ghost
Age: -
Gender: -
Posts: 2102

Mibba
February 23rd, 2007 at 09:21pm
NeoSteph:
Okay let me clear up the confusion as to the start of WW1 one because if you seriously think it was because of one man's death then you are horribly misinformed.

The events of july-august 1914 are known at the treaty alliance system it's a common case of one thing leading to another the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the boiling point in a long line of events, it is not the cause.


Explain to me the difference between a boiling point and a cause. because I don't see the difference.
I have been told since the 5th grade that the reasons why World War One happened where:
1. Imperialism
2. Nationalism
3.Militarism
4. Inter-European treaties
5. the assinnation,In any combination of the 5.

Now that being said, since it was made clear that Militarism, Imperialism and treaties are definitely reasons, doesn't it stand to say, that they vary well could just be "factors" based on the level of importance in the skeem of things you seem to placeing the assinnation?
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
February 23rd, 2007 at 09:24pm
Maiku's Requiem:
NeoSteph:
Okay let me clear up the confusion as to the start of WW1 one because if you seriously think it was because of one man's death then you are horribly misinformed.

The events of july-august 1914 are known at the treaty alliance system it's a common case of one thing leading to another the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the boiling point in a long line of events, it is not the cause.


Explain to me the difference between a boiling point and a cause. because I don't see the difference.
I have been told since the 5th grade that the reasons why World War One happened where:
1. Imperialism
2. Nationalism
3.Militarism
4. Inter-European treaties
5. the assinnation,In any combination of the 5.

Now that being said, since it was made clear that Militarism, Imperialism and treaties are definitely reasons, doesn't it stand to say, that they vary well could just be "factors" based on the level of importance in the skeem of things you seem to placeing the assinnation?
My third grade teacher told me it was the MAIN reasons
Militarism
Allies (triple alliance, triple entente)
Imperialism
Nationalism

and it's still the only cutsie way of remembering something that works for me
and then Franz Ferdinand is the spark
oh yeah, and like almost every war, ignorance played a huge role
Kurtni
Admin
Kurtni
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 34289

Mibba Blog
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:40pm
spill_no_sick:
and Osama's probably dead, if not he won't try anything again so I'm not worried about us not finding him

Shifty I have the same birthday as him, and Chuck Norris.
NeoSteph:

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.

The Zimmermann Telegram also played a great role in leading to our involvment seeing as how Germany was attempting to form an alliance with Mexico against the US in case we were to enter the war, and would in return help them regain teritories they had lost durning war with the US. Then you sneaky little Brits intercepted it, and decoded it enough to know what was happening and after debating over how to relay the message to the US, it was finally recieved by WIlson on February 25th. At first it wasn't even believed to be real, and that it was something fake to try and get us to join allied forces, but then Arthur Zimmermann gave a speech On March 30th,1917 stating that it was in fact real. The telegram clearly stated that the submarine warfare they had already been involved in would become unrestricted,which was a direct violation of the Sussex Pledge that had been established, although it also stated that Germany still wanted the US to remain neutral. That didn't really matter though, and anti-german feelings swept over the nation in addition to the anti-mexican feelings from the conflicts involving Pancho Villa, and resulted in us losing our want of neutrality.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:16pm
Kurtni:
spill_no_sick:
and Osama's probably dead, if not he won't try anything again so I'm not worried about us not finding him

Shifty I have the same birthday as him, and Chuck Norris.
NeoSteph:

United States President Woodrow Wilson declared a U.S. policy of absolute neutrality, an official stance that would last until 1917 when Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare - which seriously threatened America's commercial shipping (which was in any event almost entirely directed towards the Allies led by Britain and France) - forced the U.S. to finally enter the war on 6 April 1917.

The Zimmermann Telegram also played a great role in leading to our involvment seeing as how Germany was attempting to form an alliance with Mexico against the US in case we were to enter the war, and would in return help them regain teritories they had lost durning war with the US. Then you sneaky little Brits intercepted it, and decoded it enough to know what was happening and after debating over how to relay the message to the US, it was finally recieved by WIlson on February 25th. At first it wasn't even believed to be real, and that it was something fake to try and get us to join allied forces, but then Arthur Zimmermann gave a speech On March 30th,1917 stating that it was in fact real. The telegram clearly stated that the submarine warfare they had already been involved in would become unrestricted,which was a direct violation of the Sussex Pledge that had been established, although it also stated that Germany still wanted the US to remain neutral. That didn't really matter though, and anti-german feelings swept over the nation in addition to the anti-mexican feelings from the conflicts involving Pancho Villa, and resulted in us losing our want of neutrality.
you stole what I was about to say
and yeah, Woodrow Wilson meant that, until he later said, "hey, U-Boats, quit killing Americans"
and they didn't
and then we found out Germany was trying to help Mexico take over so he said, "fine, now America has to get involved, don't you all ever learn to take a warning?"
that was said almost a hundred years ago
see, Saddam didn't learn from history, but you can
NeoSteph
Basket Case
NeoSteph
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 16494

Mibba Blog
February 24th, 2007 at 08:39am
Maiku's Requiem:
NeoSteph:
Okay let me clear up the confusion as to the start of WW1 one because if you seriously think it was because of one man's death then you are horribly misinformed.

The events of july-august 1914 are known at the treaty alliance system it's a common case of one thing leading to another the assination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the boiling point in a long line of events, it is not the cause.


Explain to me the difference between a boiling point and a cause. because I don't see the difference.
I have been told since the 5th grade that the reasons why World War One happened where:
1. Imperialism
2. Nationalism
3.Militarism
4. Inter-European treaties
5. the assinnation,In any combination of the 5.

Now that being said, since it was made clear that Militarism, Imperialism and treaties are definitely reasons, doesn't it stand to say, that they vary well could just be "factors" based on the level of importance in the skeem of things you seem to placeing the assinnation?


The person murdered was not a popular figure in Austro-hungary, however it's widely known that AH wanted to regain control of the balkans from the serbian government and the only way to do that was to declare war. Yet they had no official way of doing that without reason. The murder (i've given up trying to spell the other word Very Happy ) allowed AH to get the ball rolling. The government was looking for an excuse, if serbia had come and tipped a suqar pot over they would have declared and ultimatem. It is a factor but not a reason because it was a cover for true motives.
Register