4 ms·
Tell us you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history.
by ctrlp 3y ago
Tell us you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history.
- reducesuffering 3y agoAre you trying to say Germany didn't launch both World Wars? Which one are you disputing, when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 or Germany invading Poland in 1939?
- ctrlp 3y agoGermany didn't "launch" WWI. WWI was "launched" by political and revolutionary pressures triggering a complex of alliances in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. WWII had similarly complex causes. It's a ridiculous simplification to lay the blame for launching these wars on one country alone, regardless of how things went.
- reducesuffering 3y agoThere's a lot of apologia for Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW1. But ultimately, Austria-Hungary started the hostilities, shelling Belgrade (cmon), and Germany allied with the aggressor and then also invaded Belgium to get to France. I don't care if you have a "complex alliance" with a clearly aggressive country (Austria-Hungary) invading Serbia. You don't support that period. And Austria-Hungary also invaded Serbia because they had Germany's backing to deal with the repercussions. Russia defending Serbia from invasion and France defending Belgium and themselves isn't an equally culpable standing. 20 million dead. Because Austria-Hungary and Germany invaded other countries. WW2 just further proved that they really were the culpable countries.
- ctrlp 3y agoThe original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country" is totally inadequate to an accurate view of this history. Austria was a declining multi-ethnic empire with internal ethnic conflicts mostly concentrated in the Serbian Nationalist movement. The Serbs were in turn supported (prior to war) by a militarizing Russia (that allied with France) who was in geopolitical competition with Germany for warm-water ports via the Balkans (sound familiar?). If you were leading Germany at that time, you'd be worried about Russia's ambitions, too. You could do a similar analysis of the complexities that precipitated WWII, not least of these was the incredibly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Read Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" among many other books about how "stupid" that treaty was. Combine that with the incredible street-level social-political instability of the inter-war years, mass migration, Bolshevism, etc... and you might have a more nuanced answer about how wars are started and who is culpable. In any case, moralizing about war and geopolitics is a sort of category error, imho. What would you have had these countries do differently, I wonder?
- dayjaby 3y agoYou forgot several parts where Serbia also invaded their neighbors, 1912. I can only imagine how history would have gone, if the Balkan Wars did not occur. 20 million dead, because everyone thinks he has to defend some ally. So First Balkan War around 200k dead. That number could have gone up quickly to 20 million as well, if the Ottomans would have had some nice allies, that come to help as soon as they get invaded. My point: defence treaties can be as dangerous as an invasion.