3 ms·

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

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
  You're starting to make as absurd of statements as the other guy in this thread. Franz Ferdinand was the defacto leader of the entirety of the entirety of Austria Hungary, and had already assumed all major responsibilities. He was the heir to his brother (not his father) 84 year old Emperor Franz Joseph, who would die 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination. And if you know anything at all about history, this is also where the House of Habsburg met its leadership end, having been in power since the 11th century! The succession mess after Franz Ferdinand ended up with Charles I becoming the heir. And as Joseph died 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination, everything slid down hill rapidly. Simply suggesting Austria Hungary should have been content to simply let the state, which had just backed the assassination of their head of state, investigate themselves, and be happy with having caught the useful idiots at the end-point of the act, is beyond absurd. This is why their terms to Serbia included the presence of Austria-Hungarian investigators within Serbia. And ultimately I think that accepting a state backed assassination while opposing invasions is just arbitrary mental gymnastics. In many ways I think assassinations and other such acts should be treated vastly more harshly, as there is something particularly pathetic about those who act in the shadows, exploiting good faith and idiots.

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
You're starting to make as absurd of statements as the other guy in this thread. Franz Ferdinand was the defacto leader of the entirety of the entirety of Austria Hungary, and had already assumed all major responsibilities. He was the heir to his brother (not his father) 84 year old Emperor Franz Joseph, who would die 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination. And if you know anything at all about history, this is also where the House of Habsburg met its leadership end, having been in power since the 11th century! The succession mess after Franz Ferdinand ended up with Charles I becoming the heir. And as Joseph died 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination, everything slid down hill rapidly. Simply suggesting Austria Hungary should have been content to simply let the state, which had just backed the assassination of their head of state, investigate themselves, and be happy with having caught the useful idiots at the end-point of the act, is beyond absurd. This is why their terms to Serbia included the presence of Austria-Hungarian investigators within Serbia. And ultimately I think that accepting a state backed assassination while opposing invasions is just arbitrary mental gymnastics. In many ways I think assassinations and other such acts should be treated vastly more harshly, as there is something particularly pathetic about those who act in the shadows, exploiting good faith and idiots.