4 ms·

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 destructiv

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.
      - barrow-rider 8y ago
        > The American Civil War and Boer Wars were exceptions, but discounted because they weren't European wars Russo-Japanese War as well. More recent than the US Civil War and gave some early examples as to what WWI would look like, but generally considered to be irrelevant since it wasn't a European War and was generally localized to the far, far east.
      - iguy 8y ago
        Indeed, discounting the American civil war seems to be the crucial step for making the 19th C look safe. While obviously not physically in Europe, it was the closest fore-taste of what determined modern states could do to each other. But contrary to TFA's claims, colonial wars were also "short, decisive, localized", maybe all 10 times smaller again (unless my googling fails me).
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I think the thing is, the Franco-Prussian war was a limited war with limited goals. The reason why the Napoleonic war stands out as the last war of significance is it was an unlimited war, which reformed europe after it. I don't think casualty counts are particularly good metrics here - rather, the metric should be the degree to which the civilian population is brought into the war, as victims, soldiers, or workers. In that sense, the colonies had been experiencing 'total' wars in the sense that, europeans rarely distinguished between civilian and enemy forces when putting down insurrection, and rarely had qualms about mass conscription in various forms. Consequently, the casualty numbers and social destruction of the first world war, while extremely unusual for europe, would have been far less unusual in east Africa, or India.
  - fork1 8y ago
    Germany started WW1 with the ambition to make it a limited war, with limited goals. Quickly subduing France, and breaking Russia. Most people on either side thought it was going to be a short war. It evolved differently though. As for the second part, take the Franco-Prussian war then, and it's consequences for France, it was massive. Besides the war that went quite badly, a massive uprising happened in Paris (the Commune), under siege from both Germans and Loyalists forces. Starvation was rampant, civilian impact massive, and the final death toll quite important. The 19th century in Europe was characterized by nationalisms, unifications of countries in blood, and liberation of a few (Greece or Serbia for ex.), again in blood. I think you're disregarding history, in the name of your argument.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - lucozade 8y ago
    In your estimation what wars, in 19C India and East Africa, are comparable to the Western Front in terms of "serious, bloody conflicts"?
    - pjc50 8y ago
      The eight million dead in the Belgian Congo?
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.

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.
    - barrow-rider 8y ago
      > The American Civil War and Boer Wars were exceptions, but discounted because they weren't European wars Russo-Japanese War as well. More recent than the US Civil War and gave some early examples as to what WWI would look like, but generally considered to be irrelevant since it wasn't a European War and was generally localized to the far, far east.
    - iguy 8y ago
      Indeed, discounting the American civil war seems to be the crucial step for making the 19th C look safe. While obviously not physically in Europe, it was the closest fore-taste of what determined modern states could do to each other. But contrary to TFA's claims, colonial wars were also "short, decisive, localized", maybe all 10 times smaller again (unless my googling fails me).
pasabagi 8y ago
I think the thing is, the Franco-Prussian war was a limited war with limited goals. The reason why the Napoleonic war stands out as the last war of significance is it was an unlimited war, which reformed europe after it. I don't think casualty counts are particularly good metrics here - rather, the metric should be the degree to which the civilian population is brought into the war, as victims, soldiers, or workers. In that sense, the colonies had been experiencing 'total' wars in the sense that, europeans rarely distinguished between civilian and enemy forces when putting down insurrection, and rarely had qualms about mass conscription in various forms. Consequently, the casualty numbers and social destruction of the first world war, while extremely unusual for europe, would have been far less unusual in east Africa, or India.
- fork1 8y ago
  Germany started WW1 with the ambition to make it a limited war, with limited goals. Quickly subduing France, and breaking Russia. Most people on either side thought it was going to be a short war. It evolved differently though. As for the second part, take the Franco-Prussian war then, and it's consequences for France, it was massive. Besides the war that went quite badly, a massive uprising happened in Paris (the Commune), under siege from both Germans and Loyalists forces. Starvation was rampant, civilian impact massive, and the final death toll quite important. The 19th century in Europe was characterized by nationalisms, unifications of countries in blood, and liberation of a few (Greece or Serbia for ex.), again in blood. I think you're disregarding history, in the name of your argument.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- lucozade 8y ago
  In your estimation what wars, in 19C India and East Africa, are comparable to the Western Front in terms of "serious, bloody conflicts"?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    The eight million dead in the Belgian Congo?

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.