Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 17th, 2017, 08:29 AM   #51

Highlander's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Ruthenians were a tiny minority both before and after the war, their population didn't change dramatically. Vojvodina Ruthenians were concentrated in just three villages in Bačka.
1910. census - 13.457
1921. census - 13. 664
Highlander is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 17th, 2017, 08:31 AM   #52
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 212

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
While we know that the Entente also committed war crimes, they didn't commit genocide and didn't seek to erase entire nations from the face of the Earth.
I'm sorry but what do you think starving an entire nation is meant to do? I don't mean to harp on this topic but it seems people are not understanding the full scope of it. This is the willful starvation of an entire people, an entire nation.
Divinespark is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 08:32 AM   #53
DVW
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 5

Sorry, but i really can't cry beacuse of Serbia. It's the war in which they shoot first bullet. If Franz Ferdinand and his pregnant wife weren't assassinated those massacres you Maki have mentioned would never take place and please don't tell me it wasn't their fault beacuse it was. Peasant murdering prince. Austria-Hungary's reaction was pretty normal as a matter of fact. Enough about Serbia. I don't want to spread Balkan nationalism on this super forum. I'm sick of it anyway, listening such a things everyday can make you really bored.

And yesterday i have forgotten one more example of British imperialism. War in the Middle East. Ottomans were fighting Russians right? That's until British attacked them at Gallipoli alongside French and ANZAC's from Australia and New Zealand again to spread their influence. They landed at Mesopotamia to grab the recently discovered oil. They cheated on Arabs to revolt againts Turkish rule while secretly signing Sykes-Picot agreement to redraw map of the region (once more with assistance of French). It was their plan all along. We can't blame Germans for this. Oil-rich desert became their colony, they wanted to do the same with Turkey, but luckily Ataturk have stopped them. I don't want people thinking i hate anyone, British people are very good people, but policy od the kingdon was always terrible and destructive. It was like that hundreds of years ago, it was like that during the subject time of WW1 and most importanly it still is like that.

This can be counted as one more argument for my theory. But i like to see that the opinion on topic i have opened is half-half and we can talk a lot about this.

Last edited by DVW; December 17th, 2017 at 08:43 AM.
DVW is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 08:39 AM   #54

Highlander's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: Serbia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVW View Post
Sorry, but i really can't cry beacuse of Serbia. It's the war in which they shoot first bullet. If Franz Ferdinand and his pregnant wife weren't assassinated those massacres you Maki have mentioned would never take place and please don't tell me it wasn't their fault beacuse it was. Peasant murdering prince. Austria-Hungary's reaction was pretty normal as a matter of fact. Enough about Serbia. I don't want to spread Balkan nationalism on this super forum. I'm sick of it anyway, listening such a things everyday can make you really bored.
You know for a fact she was pregnant? Really?

Austria-Hungary's reaction was pretty normal? Luigi Lucheni killed the empress, I don't remember Austria-Hungary invading Italy?
Highlander is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 09:22 AM   #55

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,791

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVW View Post
Sorry, but i really can't cry beacuse of Serbia. It's the war in which they shoot first bullet. If Franz Ferdinand and his pregnant wife weren't assassinated those massacres you Maki have mentioned would never take place and please don't tell me it wasn't their fault beacuse it was. Peasant murdering prince. Austria-Hungary's reaction was pretty normal as a matter of fact. Enough about Serbia. I don't want to spread Balkan nationalism on this super forum. I'm sick of it anyway, listening such a things everyday can make you really bored.
Except that Serbia had nothing to do with the assassination. I have already said that Apis was actually an opponent of Pašić's government and was definitely not working for it. Austria-Hungary fired the first shot by shelling Belgrade after issuing an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia. The assassination was nothing more than an excuse to start a war. I have already explained this in detail before so I won't repeat myself.
Maki is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:13 AM   #56

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 13,195

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
I'm sorry but what do you think starving an entire nation is meant to do? I don't mean to harp on this topic but it seems people are not understanding the full scope of it. This is the willful starvation of an entire people, an entire nation.
So German logistical failings are the fault of the British? interesting concept.

I presume the British should have been responsible for feeding the German civilians and presumably therefore the military. Why on earth would they do that?

Germany was attempting to starve Britain -- but that's fine because?.

Germany should have been well aware that the Royal Navy would strangle the sea lanes if they fail to plan accordingly that's hardly the fault of the British.
And sorry if you think blockades were invented in WWI youreally need to read more.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:15 AM   #57

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 13,195

And I can see how a victory for 'team Central Powers' is automatically a good thing.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:20 AM   #58

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,527

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
WWII had no good or bad guys either. WWII wasn't fought for morality reasons, just because the British and French were protecting their allies.
That's really debatable.

As while the Western Allies declared war in 1939 to defend Poland, one has to remember that the situation in 1939 was very different from 1914...

In 1914:
The German Empire, while its governing body was dominated by the Kaiser and the military, it did have an active legislative body in the Reichstag that often seemed to run counter to the major policy wishes of Kaiser and the military. In many ways it wasn't quite the Constitutional Monarchy that Britain was, given the army's influence, but in many ways the case could be made that Germany was headed in that direction, and without the war... there is the real potential the German government would have evolved into a true Constitutional Monarchy as the war wouldn't be there to secure the military's influence... though admittedly that point could be purely speculative.

In 1939:
The Third Reich was a totalitarian dictatorship and many Nazis openly bragged on eliminating their internal political rivals...

In 1914:
While he was supportive of Austria-Hungary with regard to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and accepted the fact that the Schlieffen Plan was highly aggressive and violated Belgian neutrality... Wilhelm II didn't want a major war, and as that appeared ever more likely, he actually tried to avoid the war. That's seen in the letters exchanged between Wilhelm II and Nicholas II. He wasn't pushing for war.

In 1939:
Much of Nazism's party ideology seemed to push for a war to destroy Communism and would mean that they were looking for a war with the Soviet Union from the beginning. And beyond that there is one reported grumbling from Hitler that the Munich Conference in 1938 denied him the opportunity to go to war over the Sudetenland. In this, it's pretty clear that Hitler was wanting to go to war...

And while one may argue that he didn't want to go to war with France or Britain... they can't argue that a war with the Soviet Union would be small.

In 1914:
While German nationalism was high in 1914... it was not to the point the Germans were willing to exterminate entire populations on a racial basis. And in fact through the First World War, by a percentage of their population, more German Jews served in the German Army than German Christians.

Atrocities were committed, but the actions in Belgium in 1914 were more based on events from the Franco-Prussian War and was used as a means to prevent civilian actions to sabotage their occupation and was thus seen as a pragmatic measure.

In 1939:
The Nazis took nationalism to the point of hatred, and essentially blamed the Jews for the defeat in WWI, and it was expanded to the point of some massive conspiracy in which Jews controlled the bankers on Wall Street and the Communists in Moscow. And while the formal plans for the Holocaust wouldn't be made until later in WW2, murders of Jews in Poland began in 1939 as the Germans moved in...

++++

Now, did the Allies declare war in 1939 to restore German democracy? No...

Did the Allies declare war in 1939 to protect Europe's Jews? No...

But by the time the war started, it was painfully obvious that Nazi Germany was not going to start treating political opponents or racial minorities better of their own accord and their defeat by 1945 removed a regime that has been heavily associated with evil for the policies they followed.

And while one may speculate on the German Empire creating a "better" world had they won WWI... the same speculation cannot be made for what would happen if Nazi Germany had won WWII... not without a massive change in what we define as "good" and "bad."

Last edited by Sam-Nary; December 17th, 2017 at 10:28 AM.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:21 AM   #59
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter View Post
No come on, look at Germany's war aims! Britain's was to stop the new German coast visible for Dover. If France had been defeated Britain would assuredly have been next, the Kaiser referred to us as the 'real enemy'
A large portion of the Kaiser's family was British. Also if the UK maintained a healthy naval advantage over the Germans why should they have cared about the visible coast from Dover? Also are you implying France would have been conquered because I don't think it would have been?
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:26 AM   #60
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 2,022

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirOrmondeWinter View Post
No, the Germans more of less forced the Austrians into it, the Russians and French did not want the war, Germany were always the aggressors.
Germany gave Austria a "blank check" because they didn't think it would baloon into something more. Austria was the one who needed assurance of that check.

France was the weakest of the main five great powers and wanted to reconquer specific territories. They might not have wanted the war in 1914 but they were the only one of the great five powers where seizing particular lost territory was an aim so eventually war was in their interest. France was the destablizing force in Europe as France was isolated in the 1890s until Wilhelm chose Austria over Russia and later couldn't make a deal with the UK and the French started aggressively recruiting allies even allies it didn't ideologically agree with for it's revenge quest.

France is the only one of the great five powers who had long term intent to eventually go to war because to them the status quo was unacceptable.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
entente, guilty, guys, ww1



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which side during the Crusades were the relative "good guys"? Futurist Middle Eastern and African History 197 February 17th, 2018 07:43 AM
Wars with clear-cut good guys and bad guys? WhatAnArtist War and Military History 64 October 7th, 2016 02:31 PM
UK support to Entente in ww1 Azatoth European History 5 December 31st, 2015 12:54 AM
Who were the good guys in Vietnam? Toltec Asian History 52 May 20th, 2010 08:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.