5 ms·

> Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia And you talk about fair recounting? Fi

> Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia And you talk about fair recounting? First off, every single war decision is made by humans. People seem to gloss over this when talking about history and countries, but even if you have a treaty with another country, you're still making a choice to declare war. You can argue that its always the moral choice to obey a treaty and declare war, but its still a choice. Secondly, the austro-hungarian "terms for settlement" were deliberately designed to be refused, the terms were extremely punitive and made with every intention of provoking a war. This isn't speculation, this is what the people making the terms said to each other. Also a sizeable part of the reason austro-hungary felt able to make such demands is because germany was encouraging them and offering support, both via treaties and more informal communications. After that, yes, treaties gave other countries reasons to get involved in that war, but I think there's a pretty clear moral difference between "serbia gets invaded so I'm going to honor my treaty to attempt to defend them" and "oh hey, my ally started a war by invading someone, I'm going to get in on that action and invade someone else!" > that would quickly end up turning to hyperinflation, began shortly after the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1920s, in the Weimar Republic. Germany didn't have anywhere near enough money to pay off their debts under the Treaty of Versailles, First off, "shortly after" is doing a massive amount of work there. Yes, in terms of "history of the world" it was a short amount of time, but that doesn't mean one caused the other. The inflation was a combination of poor economic decisions and deliberate attempts to destabilize the country. Hitler wasn't made leader until 1933 but the nazis (and more importantly, their backers and allies) had a large amount of power in the country even in the 1920s (see the beer hall putsch, it didn't succeed but just the fact it was possible says a lot). Yes, the occupation of the ruhr didn't actually help, but the occupiers also left after 2 years and a new plan of repayments was agreed to. You can argue that its "natural" or maybe just "predictable" that germany would (essentially) start voting for the nazis after something like that, but its still a choice people made, and more importantly, the choice to start invading other countries was made well over a decade later. The point I wanted to emphasize is that all of these wars were the results of people making choices. You're never forced or required to invade someone. You choose to do that, and germany rightly bears the blame for choosing to do so. You can argue that other people/countries could hade made different choices and those different choices might have influenced the choices people in germany made, but again, they're not controlling the people making the choices. (Also this whole storyline is a great counter-example to the silly trope about "victors writing history" since there is a massive amount of, uh "myths" about ww1 and ww2 era germany written by the germans, who certainly didn't win)

somenameforme 3y ago
And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was just, even moreso after giving a Serbia a diplomatic way out, even if the terms were indeed harsh. Russia moving to defend Serbia was just. Germany moving to defend Austria Hungary was just. Everything following the assassination was just and reasonable from near to everybody involved. As for inflation, "shortly" after isn't doing any work there. Hyperinflation began in the Weimar Republic in 1921 [1]. The Nazi party had only been formally formed in 1920 and had exactly 0 power. The hyperinflation is one of the means they managed to recruit as many people as they did. It created a large base of premium recruits: young, drunk, unemployed, and angry. But to claim they created said economic circumstance is, let's say, you perhaps mixing up this moment in history with something else. Had Austria Hungary won, then a parallel dimension you could well be here arguing that the consequences e.g. Russia (or France or whomever else) faced were perfectly just and reasonable. You might say that it's one's choice to come to the defense of an ally, and choosing to defend an ally under assault for assassinating another nation's leader speaks bounds of your own integrity, or lack thereof. When looking at history (and the present and future) I endeavor to try to take a position that I think I would hold, regardless of who won and who lost. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
- wredcoll 3y ago
  > And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Murder is a crime and the perpetrators should be punished... which they were. Many members of the groups involved in the assassination were tried and several were sentenced to death. Invading another country afterwards and calling it "just and reasonable" is more than a bit ridiculous. Also, just for the record, franz ferdinand wasn't anyone's leader, he was the son of the current emperor of austo-hungary, and to be honest, most of the political elite who led the effort to start a war didn't particularly like or care for him anyways. Somewhat ironically, a large part of this dislike is because ferdinand was generally arguing in favor of peace. As for "regardless of who won and who lost", my consistent point is condemning the invaders, regardless of whether they won or lost. Again, for example, france invaded germany a few decades earlier, lost, and had to pay reparations, and basically no one has ever brought it up again as some kind of excuse for starting a world war.

somenameforme 3y ago

And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was just, even moreso after giving a Serbia a diplomatic way out, even if the terms were indeed harsh. Russia moving to defend Serbia was just. Germany moving to defend Austria Hungary was just. Everything following the assassination was just and reasonable from near to everybody involved. As for inflation, "shortly" after isn't doing any work there. Hyperinflation began in the Weimar Republic in 1921 [1]. The Nazi party had only been formally formed in 1920 and had exactly 0 power. The hyperinflation is one of the means they managed to recruit as many people as they did. It created a large base of premium recruits: young, drunk, unemployed, and angry. But to claim they created said economic circumstance is, let's say, you perhaps mixing up this moment in history with something else. Had Austria Hungary won, then a parallel dimension you could well be here arguing that the consequences e.g. Russia (or France or whomever else) faced were perfectly just and reasonable. You might say that it's one's choice to come to the defense of an ally, and choosing to defend an ally under assault for assassinating another nation's leader speaks bounds of your own integrity, or lack thereof. When looking at history (and the present and future) I endeavor to try to take a position that I think I would hold, regardless of who won and who lost. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...

wredcoll 3y ago
> And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Murder is a crime and the perpetrators should be punished... which they were. Many members of the groups involved in the assassination were tried and several were sentenced to death. Invading another country afterwards and calling it "just and reasonable" is more than a bit ridiculous. Also, just for the record, franz ferdinand wasn't anyone's leader, he was the son of the current emperor of austo-hungary, and to be honest, most of the political elite who led the effort to start a war didn't particularly like or care for him anyways. Somewhat ironically, a large part of this dislike is because ferdinand was generally arguing in favor of peace. As for "regardless of who won and who lost", my consistent point is condemning the invaders, regardless of whether they won or lost. Again, for example, france invaded germany a few decades earlier, lost, and had to pay reparations, and basically no one has ever brought it up again as some kind of excuse for starting a world war.