6 ms·

The entire history of Europe is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars. Yes they exported it overseas but IMO WW1 is a continuation of a tradition of continen

The entire history of Europe is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars. Yes they exported it overseas but IMO WW1 is a continuation of a tradition of continental violence, not colonial violence that came home. One could argue rather the colonial violence is an export of the European history of war, as Chomsky does in "Year 501"

danmaz74 8y ago
Tbh, having a state of very frequent wars wasn't an exclusive to Europe.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  wasn't => isn't
pasabagi 8y ago
The years before the first world war had seen no serious, bloody conflicts since the Napoleonic wars. Most of the techniques and technologies used so destructively in WW1 were tested first in the colonies. More fundamentally, the basic driver of tensions before the first world war was the german desire for colonies, or rather, export markets to allow their continued economic growth.
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  Do you count the American Civil War as a colonial war?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I don't think that happened in Europe.
- wcarey 8y ago
  Would the quarter million casualties of the Franco-Prussian war push it into the category of "serious, bloody" conflict?
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  650,000 casualties in the Franco-Prussian War. The November Uprising 100,000 casualties. Russo-Turkish War 200,000 casualties. Crimean War 800,000 casualties. I guess I don't know what counts as a serious, bloody conflict.
  - jaimebuelta 8y ago
    Franco-Prussian War happened in 1870, 45 years earlier than WWI. There was a surprising period of peace in Europe in the late XIX century where for 40 years there was relative peace. That probably work towards the specifics of WWI (war involving almost everyone in Europe, in a very short timespan, with no clear objective for anyone)
    - freddie_mercury 8y ago
      1912-1913: Balkan Wars: 500,000 casualties I'm not really seeing peace. I mean, the First Balkan War ended only 13 months before the outbreak of WW1.
      - jcranmer 8y ago
        The Seven Years' War killed a million people. Napoleonic Wars 5 million. The Balkan Wars 150,000 (note I'm counting deaths, not casualties). Crimean War 400,000 and the Franco-Prussian War perhaps 200,000. World War I itself saw the deaths of over 10 million people. The Russian Civil War half that and World War II quadruple that. These numbers are not 10x anything seen since the Napoleonic Wars, they are 100x. The experience of the long 19th century was that wars would be short, decisive, localized in scope, and fairly bloodless. The Balkan Wars and the wars of Italian and German unification were not exceptions to this rule. The American Civil War and Boer Wars were exceptions, but discounted because they weren't European wars. The Crimean War was a partial exception (it was long and indecisive, but still fairly localized and fairly bloodless for the ambitions of the powers involved). The leaders were wholly unprepared for the long, bloody stalemate that would characterize World War I, or the incessant civil wars and wars of ideology that would characterize the wars between World War I and World War II.
- fork1 8y ago
  There was plenty of important conflicts in Europe between WW1 and the Napoleonic wars, not on the same scale, but it was hardly peaceful. Europe was undergoing major structural changes with the advent of nationalisms. And the causes of war are a lot more complicated than just Germany looking for export markets and colonies. It might be one of many causes (or rather consequences of other factors), but it's hardly the basic driver.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - thrower123 8y ago
    Indeed, just in the decade or so before the guns of august, there were a whole series of wars throughout the Balkans, as the Ottoman Empire started to unravel, that primed the tinderbox and led to the events of Sarajevo. Given a few more years, it's almost inevitable that nationalist movements would have fractured and busted apart the Austro-Hungarians and their uneasy multicultural coalition, given the frightening incompetence of most of their leadership. The reunification of Italy always seems to get swept under the rug as well.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  What about the Franco-Prussian War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War from 1870-1871. Between France and Germany, over 3 million soldiers were deployed and 44,000 Germans and 138,000 French soldiers died. There was also the Crimean War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War from 1853-1856, in which all sides mobilized over a million soldiers and suffered 750,000 losses and casualties (including deaths from disease). Finally, although not in Europe, the American Civil War of 1861-1865 was a foretaste of what industrialize warfare looked like with artillery, trenches, railroads and telegraphs, as well as the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure as a way to destroy the enemies' ability to continue to wage a war.
- muro 8y ago
  There were also the 3 italian wars of independence.
asianthrowaway 8y ago
The entire history of mankind is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars.
sbhn 8y ago
Very good point, the amplification of the importance of WW1 is essential for the families that still profit from war and division today.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > the importance of WW1 Realising the importance of WW1 and its impact is important so that such a war does not happen again.
baud147258 8y ago
> The entire history of Europe is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars. By that measure, the rest of the world is the same, with vicious and brutal wars everywhere since the dawn of civilization.
- weberc2 8y ago
  Except that Europe in general kept better written records than much of the rest of the world, so we’re more familiar with its violence.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    Agree. A good example is the Mongol empire, which I wasn't familiar with at all (it is barely covered by any european school history book). Dan Carlin made an interesting series of podcasts on the topic [1]. The Mongols barely left any written trace but wiped out entires cities and regions [2]. [1] https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-of-the-khans-i/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-44-wrath-of-the-khans-ii/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-44-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-45-wrath-of-the-khans-iii/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-45-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-46-wrath-of-the-khans-iv/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-46-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-47-wrath-of-the-khans-v/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-47-wrath-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire#Demographic_changes_in_war-torn_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
    - qubax 8y ago
      Dan Carlin is not a historian, he is an entertainer. His podcasts are entertaining fiction, not history. > The Mongols barely left any written trace but wiped out entires cities and regions [2]. They left tons of written traces - in muscovy russia, in yuan china, in mughal persia, etc. You can't maintain such a large empire consisting of many civilizations without records. Most of it disappeared over the years as the empire broke apart and different empires formed. Much of the history of the mongol empire is twisted propaganda, like all history. But it's especially so for the mongol empire due to shifting change of nationalistic, ethnic and racial landscape. Here in the west, the mongol empire is caricatured and hated for racial reasons. In other parts of the world, the mongol empire is admired. In most of the world, it's a bit of both. Also, most old empires, including the chinese, romans, greeks, indians, mesopotamians, egyptians, etc left very few records relatively speaking.
cm2187 8y ago
I'd add that there was nothing in nature specific to ww1. These mass, all-in, full conscription wars have happened all over the XIX since the Napoleonic wars. What was new was the exponential improvement in technology that had devastating effects, which ww2 surpassed with an order of magnitude (burning an entire country to the ground rather than a few battlefields). The gradual increase in horror and devastation between the great european wars has really been a story of technological advances more than anything else.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The difference was the the theatre of war wasn't the battlefield, but the entire economy in general. Germany lost WW1 because they ran out of money first, while the allied powers could have kept the meat grinder churning for another 2-3 years with US intervention. With industrialization, the results on the battlefield didn't really have much to do with the outcome of the conflict. Direct conflict between major powers from circa-1860 onward was about destroying the enemy's economy and political system or destroying the enemy utterly. The pursuit of decisive military victory was defeated time and time again, with the exception of the atomic bomb, and even that is arguable.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    I don't know if that was specific to ww1. Finance, supplies and ability to hold a siege has always been key to wars.
nabla9 8y ago
After Mongols were gone, Europeans were simply the best at organizing large scale, multi-year wars. Big war is all about logistics. Troops need to be fed constantly. By the rate of death per 100,000 people Thirty Year's War was as violent as the two world wars. source: https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 Thirty Year's War was basically Europeans being religious nuts and solving the issue by fighting until exhaustion. The original reason for the continuous war was long forgotten when everyone was done. In the end Europeans just agreed to hate each others religion and just fight the normal amount.

danmaz74 8y ago

Tbh, having a state of very frequent wars wasn't an exclusive to Europe.

ur-whale 8y ago
wasn't => isn't

pasabagi 8y ago

The years before the first world war had seen no serious, bloody conflicts since the Napoleonic wars. Most of the techniques and technologies used so destructively in WW1 were tested first in the colonies. More fundamentally, the basic driver of tensions before the first world war was the german desire for colonies, or rather, export markets to allow their continued economic growth.

gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
Do you count the American Civil War as a colonial war?
- icebraining 8y ago
  I don't think that happened in Europe.
wcarey 8y ago
Would the quarter million casualties of the Franco-Prussian war push it into the category of "serious, bloody" conflict?
freddie_mercury 8y ago
650,000 casualties in the Franco-Prussian War. The November Uprising 100,000 casualties. Russo-Turkish War 200,000 casualties. Crimean War 800,000 casualties. I guess I don't know what counts as a serious, bloody conflict.
- jaimebuelta 8y ago
  Franco-Prussian War happened in 1870, 45 years earlier than WWI. There was a surprising period of peace in Europe in the late XIX century where for 40 years there was relative peace. That probably work towards the specifics of WWI (war involving almost everyone in Europe, in a very short timespan, with no clear objective for anyone)
  - freddie_mercury 8y ago
    1912-1913: Balkan Wars: 500,000 casualties I'm not really seeing peace. I mean, the First Balkan War ended only 13 months before the outbreak of WW1.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      The Seven Years' War killed a million people. Napoleonic Wars 5 million. The Balkan Wars 150,000 (note I'm counting deaths, not casualties). Crimean War 400,000 and the Franco-Prussian War perhaps 200,000. World War I itself saw the deaths of over 10 million people. The Russian Civil War half that and World War II quadruple that. These numbers are not 10x anything seen since the Napoleonic Wars, they are 100x. The experience of the long 19th century was that wars would be short, decisive, localized in scope, and fairly bloodless. The Balkan Wars and the wars of Italian and German unification were not exceptions to this rule. The American Civil War and Boer Wars were exceptions, but discounted because they weren't European wars. The Crimean War was a partial exception (it was long and indecisive, but still fairly localized and fairly bloodless for the ambitions of the powers involved). The leaders were wholly unprepared for the long, bloody stalemate that would characterize World War I, or the incessant civil wars and wars of ideology that would characterize the wars between World War I and World War II.
fork1 8y ago
There was plenty of important conflicts in Europe between WW1 and the Napoleonic wars, not on the same scale, but it was hardly peaceful. Europe was undergoing major structural changes with the advent of nationalisms. And the causes of war are a lot more complicated than just Germany looking for export markets and colonies. It might be one of many causes (or rather consequences of other factors), but it's hardly the basic driver.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- thrower123 8y ago
  Indeed, just in the decade or so before the guns of august, there were a whole series of wars throughout the Balkans, as the Ottoman Empire started to unravel, that primed the tinderbox and led to the events of Sarajevo. Given a few more years, it's almost inevitable that nationalist movements would have fractured and busted apart the Austro-Hungarians and their uneasy multicultural coalition, given the frightening incompetence of most of their leadership. The reunification of Italy always seems to get swept under the rug as well.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
What about the Franco-Prussian War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War from 1870-1871. Between France and Germany, over 3 million soldiers were deployed and 44,000 Germans and 138,000 French soldiers died. There was also the Crimean War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War from 1853-1856, in which all sides mobilized over a million soldiers and suffered 750,000 losses and casualties (including deaths from disease). Finally, although not in Europe, the American Civil War of 1861-1865 was a foretaste of what industrialize warfare looked like with artillery, trenches, railroads and telegraphs, as well as the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure as a way to destroy the enemies' ability to continue to wage a war.
muro 8y ago
There were also the 3 italian wars of independence.

asianthrowaway 8y ago

The entire history of mankind is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars.

sbhn 8y ago

Very good point, the amplification of the importance of WW1 is essential for the families that still profit from war and division today.

baud147258 8y ago
> the importance of WW1 Realising the importance of WW1 and its impact is important so that such a war does not happen again.

baud147258 8y ago

> The entire history of Europe is one of constant, vicious and brutal wars. By that measure, the rest of the world is the same, with vicious and brutal wars everywhere since the dawn of civilization.

weberc2 8y ago
Except that Europe in general kept better written records than much of the rest of the world, so we’re more familiar with its violence.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Agree. A good example is the Mongol empire, which I wasn't familiar with at all (it is barely covered by any european school history book). Dan Carlin made an interesting series of podcasts on the topic [1]. The Mongols barely left any written trace but wiped out entires cities and regions [2]. [1] https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-of-the-khans-i/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-43-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-44-wrath-of-the-khans-ii/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-44-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-45-wrath-of-the-khans-iii/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-45-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-46-wrath-of-the-khans-iv/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-46-wrath-... https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-47-wrath-of-the-khans-v/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-47-wrath-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire#Demographic_changes_in_war-torn_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
  - qubax 8y ago
    Dan Carlin is not a historian, he is an entertainer. His podcasts are entertaining fiction, not history. > The Mongols barely left any written trace but wiped out entires cities and regions [2]. They left tons of written traces - in muscovy russia, in yuan china, in mughal persia, etc. You can't maintain such a large empire consisting of many civilizations without records. Most of it disappeared over the years as the empire broke apart and different empires formed. Much of the history of the mongol empire is twisted propaganda, like all history. But it's especially so for the mongol empire due to shifting change of nationalistic, ethnic and racial landscape. Here in the west, the mongol empire is caricatured and hated for racial reasons. In other parts of the world, the mongol empire is admired. In most of the world, it's a bit of both. Also, most old empires, including the chinese, romans, greeks, indians, mesopotamians, egyptians, etc left very few records relatively speaking.

cm2187 8y ago

I'd add that there was nothing in nature specific to ww1. These mass, all-in, full conscription wars have happened all over the XIX since the Napoleonic wars. What was new was the exponential improvement in technology that had devastating effects, which ww2 surpassed with an order of magnitude (burning an entire country to the ground rather than a few battlefields). The gradual increase in horror and devastation between the great european wars has really been a story of technological advances more than anything else.

Spooky23 8y ago
The difference was the the theatre of war wasn't the battlefield, but the entire economy in general. Germany lost WW1 because they ran out of money first, while the allied powers could have kept the meat grinder churning for another 2-3 years with US intervention. With industrialization, the results on the battlefield didn't really have much to do with the outcome of the conflict. Direct conflict between major powers from circa-1860 onward was about destroying the enemy's economy and political system or destroying the enemy utterly. The pursuit of decisive military victory was defeated time and time again, with the exception of the atomic bomb, and even that is arguable.
- cm2187 8y ago
  I don't know if that was specific to ww1. Finance, supplies and ability to hold a siege has always been key to wars.

nabla9 8y ago

After Mongols were gone, Europeans were simply the best at organizing large scale, multi-year wars. Big war is all about logistics. Troops need to be fed constantly. By the rate of death per 100,000 people Thirty Year's War was as violent as the two world wars. source: https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 Thirty Year's War was basically Europeans being religious nuts and solving the issue by fighting until exhaustion. The original reason for the continuous war was long forgotten when everyone was done. In the end Europeans just agreed to hate each others religion and just fight the normal amount.