5 ms·

The article also doesn't mention that WW1 practically started way earlier and would probably happen even without annexation of Bosnia and assassination of Archd

The article also doesn't mention that WW1 practically started way earlier and would probably happen even without annexation of Bosnia and assassination of Archduke which was just casus belli. Nice write up here : http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-war-i.html http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-w... What worries me is that today it all looks very similar. Heck, even in Bosnia there is a guy from Austria with absolute power. Then we have crisis in Africa and some countries trying to assert themselves as powers.

Svip 11y ago
There is one significant difference between then and now: The world powers wanted a war back then. Emperor Wilhelm II's push for a 'small war' between Austria and Serbia was just the sign of how things were. But Austria's hesitation to act, allowed France and Russia to 'mobilise' their positions. Imagine if Austria had attacked Serbia straight away? Then perhaps it would not have escalated to a great war. Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. And I'm glad this is the case. A war between any of the great powers could potentially have catastrophic consequences for almost everyone. > Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers. Maybe this seemed like a acceptable strategy back in the 90ties, but today we see it backfiring on everyone. Refugees flooding the EU causing EU members to block each other which in turn threatens the EU itself, radicalised Muslims threatening the territorial integrity of China, North Korea going nuts, possibly a bloody civil war awaiting Turkey. My point is that you can gang up and beat on weak players only for so long until the masses radicalise and become a major threat to your own existence.
  - Svip 11y ago
    I agree. I apologise if my phrasing implied approval of this strategy, that was not my intent. Our current leader suffer the same weakness as our past leaders: Failure to foresee the consequences of their preferred (and tested) strategies in new environments. The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. And it looked like it might almost have been that, had it not been for some strategic blunders by German HQ. Blunders that were sparked by conservative ideas and classic defence strategy. When the war became entrenched, no side truly knew how to advance. They knew how to defend their position (machine guns), but not how to take the other's positions. That first really changed with the introduction of the tank. But that arrived too late to partake in many battles in that war. The Second World War proved its usefulness to its fullest. Traditional geopolitical, strategic thinking and military schools turned the First World War into a far bloodier than it could have been. New technology, new warfare tactics among other things have changed they dynamic for war. Today, new ideologies, again new warfare tactics (think urban warfare), new opponents (not nation states anymore) among other things are again changing the dynamic. When the First World War ended, the solution to it was the same as always; war reparation without considerations to their consequences. The same thing is happening today; old strategy and military schools are being applied to conflicts to which they do not apply. It might be because our current leaders are politicians first, and need to secure their popularity among voters. Moreso than our past leaders. But it might also just be history repeating itself. In a way.
    - RUG3Y 11y ago
      > The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. Europe has historically had long, drawn out wars that wiped out huge swathes of the civilian population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
  - zimpenfish 11y ago
    > Refugees flooding the EU About 2M refugees in 2015 (highest number I could find) into a population of ~508M isn't "flooding". For comparison, there seems to have been just over 5M "live births" in 2014[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 [2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections/population-data/main-tables http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migra... [3] http://www.statista.com/statistics/253401/number-of-live-births-in-the-eu/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/253401/number-of-live-bir...
- davorb 11y ago
  > The world powers wanted a war back then. That is arguable. Austria certainly wanted war with Serbia, but a world war? Absolutely not. Germany certainly didn't want a war, but in the event that war was coming, they were more or less forced to mobilize. In fact, if you read the writings of the day, there were a lot of people saying that globalization (they didn't call it that) made a world war was impossible, because it was in no one's economic interest. Basically, all of the arguments that people use today to explain why war between the United States and China is impossible -- people used back back then. > A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars. http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    A very interesting point. I wonder what was the flaw in the reasoning. It certainly seems unlikely that a major war would occur between the US and China. I believe this today: that it would just be so incredibly bad for business that it's an unlikely practical outcome. Has the nature of international relations changed, or have we just gotten lucky? Certainly I think the international (and many-national) perspective on human rights and the rights of persons has evolved since then. A draft of soldiers would be perceived quite extremely in the modern day, and would face staunch and inexorable political pressure except in the face of something like total war. Furthermore, globalization has increased substantially since then. A total war with a breakdown of international trade could quickly result in famine in many areas of the world. It seems more likely that modern warfare will occur through complex and subtle means like economic and financial sabotage (like the measures that have been used against Iran). Arguably this is going on between the US and China in some ways today, with the weakening of China's stock market, the recent US bans on Chinese products, and requirements imposed on foreign companies by China. However, to all the degree that they're add odds with each other, I fundamentally get the impression that US and China are too rational and self-interested to reach armed conflict with each other. It's also interesting to consider how culture may have shifted over time. 60 years ago, the population might have had one particular perception about going to war with "the japs" (and Asian ethnic slurs). In the modern day, demonizing Asia feels somehow dated, and it's popular to demonize the Arab world instead. I don't know if this is underlying truth or just media spin, but even though there are significant ideological differences in some way (e.g., freedom of speech), it doesn't seem like USA or other conventionally western countries are somehow "at odds with" Asia, even though from a financial perspective that's far more the case than most parts of the world that area in the media a lot more. I suppose it relates to people chanting "death to the USA" and exploding bombs and things like that. Perhaps also it relates to the fact that there's been far less imperialism from the USA directed toward China and similar territories than toward other areas of the world. Who knows. Wikipedia has something interesting to say about this: "The partnership between China and the United States, where each nation regards each other as a potential adversary as well as a strategic partner, has been described by world leaders and academicians as the world's most important bilateral relationship of the century. As of 2014, the United States has the world's largest economy and China the second largest. [...] China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States,[4] holding about 10% ($1.8 trillion) of the U.S. national debt." "China–United States relations have generally been stable with some periods of open conflict, most notably during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries" - so, the things that we have a stake in are unlikely to lead us to war. The USA is not going to go to war with China over its civil rights issues. "The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. At the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2014, both countries confirmed that they wanted to improve their relationship. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States did not seek to contain China,[5] while Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that a confrontation between the two countries would be a disaster." - also unlikely to lead to war. It helps that both countries are essentially atheist states. The most likely way that USA and China get drawn into war is through some kind of proxy situation with allies that they get drawn into. However, they are so much more powerful than their allied nations that I suspect each party enforces detente. All of this said, it seems plausible that there are tensions brewing on the horizon, with China having 1.3 billion people and USA 320 million. Human capital is an extremely valuable resource. Perhaps we are just fortunate to be in a calm period of history during recent times.
yakshemash 11y ago
I am surprised you mention Africa as a potential flash point. Can you be more specific? I would have thought the middle east and the Korean peninsula would be top candidates for globalized conflict. Most of the crisis in Africa seem to be very local in scope in comparison.
RUG3Y 11y ago
The world in general seems to be on the brink, and the attitudes of governments in particular seems to echo the attitudes that existed prior to WWI. They're playing a dangerous game, and the rest of us pay the cost.

Svip 11y ago

There is one significant difference between then and now: The world powers wanted a war back then. Emperor Wilhelm II's push for a 'small war' between Austria and Serbia was just the sign of how things were. But Austria's hesitation to act, allowed France and Russia to 'mobilise' their positions. Imagine if Austria had attacked Serbia straight away? Then perhaps it would not have escalated to a great war. Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.

DominikR 11y ago
> Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. And I'm glad this is the case. A war between any of the great powers could potentially have catastrophic consequences for almost everyone. > Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers. Maybe this seemed like a acceptable strategy back in the 90ties, but today we see it backfiring on everyone. Refugees flooding the EU causing EU members to block each other which in turn threatens the EU itself, radicalised Muslims threatening the territorial integrity of China, North Korea going nuts, possibly a bloody civil war awaiting Turkey. My point is that you can gang up and beat on weak players only for so long until the masses radicalise and become a major threat to your own existence.
- Svip 11y ago
  I agree. I apologise if my phrasing implied approval of this strategy, that was not my intent. Our current leader suffer the same weakness as our past leaders: Failure to foresee the consequences of their preferred (and tested) strategies in new environments. The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. And it looked like it might almost have been that, had it not been for some strategic blunders by German HQ. Blunders that were sparked by conservative ideas and classic defence strategy. When the war became entrenched, no side truly knew how to advance. They knew how to defend their position (machine guns), but not how to take the other's positions. That first really changed with the introduction of the tank. But that arrived too late to partake in many battles in that war. The Second World War proved its usefulness to its fullest. Traditional geopolitical, strategic thinking and military schools turned the First World War into a far bloodier than it could have been. New technology, new warfare tactics among other things have changed they dynamic for war. Today, new ideologies, again new warfare tactics (think urban warfare), new opponents (not nation states anymore) among other things are again changing the dynamic. When the First World War ended, the solution to it was the same as always; war reparation without considerations to their consequences. The same thing is happening today; old strategy and military schools are being applied to conflicts to which they do not apply. It might be because our current leaders are politicians first, and need to secure their popularity among voters. Moreso than our past leaders. But it might also just be history repeating itself. In a way.
  - RUG3Y 11y ago
    > The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. Europe has historically had long, drawn out wars that wiped out huge swathes of the civilian population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  > Refugees flooding the EU About 2M refugees in 2015 (highest number I could find) into a population of ~508M isn't "flooding". For comparison, there seems to have been just over 5M "live births" in 2014[3]. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24583286 [2] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections/population-data/main-tables http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migra... [3] http://www.statista.com/statistics/253401/number-of-live-births-in-the-eu/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/253401/number-of-live-bir...
davorb 11y ago
> The world powers wanted a war back then. That is arguable. Austria certainly wanted war with Serbia, but a world war? Absolutely not. Germany certainly didn't want a war, but in the event that war was coming, they were more or less forced to mobilize. In fact, if you read the writings of the day, there were a lot of people saying that globalization (they didn't call it that) made a world war was impossible, because it was in no one's economic interest. Basically, all of the arguments that people use today to explain why war between the United States and China is impossible -- people used back back then. > A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars. http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...
- Pyxl101 11y ago
  A very interesting point. I wonder what was the flaw in the reasoning. It certainly seems unlikely that a major war would occur between the US and China. I believe this today: that it would just be so incredibly bad for business that it's an unlikely practical outcome. Has the nature of international relations changed, or have we just gotten lucky? Certainly I think the international (and many-national) perspective on human rights and the rights of persons has evolved since then. A draft of soldiers would be perceived quite extremely in the modern day, and would face staunch and inexorable political pressure except in the face of something like total war. Furthermore, globalization has increased substantially since then. A total war with a breakdown of international trade could quickly result in famine in many areas of the world. It seems more likely that modern warfare will occur through complex and subtle means like economic and financial sabotage (like the measures that have been used against Iran). Arguably this is going on between the US and China in some ways today, with the weakening of China's stock market, the recent US bans on Chinese products, and requirements imposed on foreign companies by China. However, to all the degree that they're add odds with each other, I fundamentally get the impression that US and China are too rational and self-interested to reach armed conflict with each other. It's also interesting to consider how culture may have shifted over time. 60 years ago, the population might have had one particular perception about going to war with "the japs" (and Asian ethnic slurs). In the modern day, demonizing Asia feels somehow dated, and it's popular to demonize the Arab world instead. I don't know if this is underlying truth or just media spin, but even though there are significant ideological differences in some way (e.g., freedom of speech), it doesn't seem like USA or other conventionally western countries are somehow "at odds with" Asia, even though from a financial perspective that's far more the case than most parts of the world that area in the media a lot more. I suppose it relates to people chanting "death to the USA" and exploding bombs and things like that. Perhaps also it relates to the fact that there's been far less imperialism from the USA directed toward China and similar territories than toward other areas of the world. Who knows. Wikipedia has something interesting to say about this: "The partnership between China and the United States, where each nation regards each other as a potential adversary as well as a strategic partner, has been described by world leaders and academicians as the world's most important bilateral relationship of the century. As of 2014, the United States has the world's largest economy and China the second largest. [...] China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States,[4] holding about 10% ($1.8 trillion) of the U.S. national debt." "China–United States relations have generally been stable with some periods of open conflict, most notably during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries" - so, the things that we have a stake in are unlikely to lead us to war. The USA is not going to go to war with China over its civil rights issues. "The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. At the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2014, both countries confirmed that they wanted to improve their relationship. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States did not seek to contain China,[5] while Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that a confrontation between the two countries would be a disaster." - also unlikely to lead to war. It helps that both countries are essentially atheist states. The most likely way that USA and China get drawn into war is through some kind of proxy situation with allies that they get drawn into. However, they are so much more powerful than their allied nations that I suspect each party enforces detente. All of this said, it seems plausible that there are tensions brewing on the horizon, with China having 1.3 billion people and USA 320 million. Human capital is an extremely valuable resource. Perhaps we are just fortunate to be in a calm period of history during recent times.

yakshemash 11y ago

I am surprised you mention Africa as a potential flash point. Can you be more specific? I would have thought the middle east and the Korean peninsula would be top candidates for globalized conflict. Most of the crisis in Africa seem to be very local in scope in comparison.

RUG3Y 11y ago

The world in general seems to be on the brink, and the attitudes of governments in particular seems to echo the attitudes that existed prior to WWI. They're playing a dangerous game, and the rest of us pay the cost.