Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Alternatives to WW1

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Marzipan (U1050128) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  I know little about the history of the time but, like most people, I am horrified by the loss of life which occurred in the First World War. It is often described as a waste of lives but could anything have been done to avoid it? What alternatives might there have been? What would have happened if we had refused to sacrifice our young men?

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  Who knows - may not have come to anything
  
  or
  
  Germany would have dominated Europe like Napolean
  
  or Russia would still have a Czar and the Left would have come to nothing (likely that Russia would have been up with the US as the Global Powerhouse as we would probably have faded - home rule in the Empire etc,) - argued that one of the main reasons why Germany favoured war was the prediction that Russia's industrialisation was expected to eclipse that of Germany within 20 years at the start of the 20th century - and thus would soon dominate Europe unless the were nobbled !
  
  or we may still have been the bankers to the world
  
  it could also be argued that it may have saved an even greater loss of life later in the century as the technology of mass destruction developed !!

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  Even the loss of life was much less than the losses from the great 'flu epidemic that followed the war.

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  Boppy quite true what you say and right on the point.
  
  Myself I have discussed in the past and actualle added even more - it was a known fact that Russia was on their way of getting quickly industrialised and in that being the 2nd only European/European-affiliated state to have both industrialisation and enormous lands and ressources (the other was of course USA).
  
  I have always considered Germans - no matter their rapid development - as middlemen, as 2nd rate international actors and indeed that is what they have been. The whole WWI war aimed at Russia and not at Germany or Austria. Germans and Austrians were just the excuse and the reason to mobilise armies around but the truth is that the main reasons were two and were far from the battlefields of France:
  
  1) Containment of Russia by implicit ways
  2) Control of Middle East
  
  1) The first was achieved by
  a) a war with Germany combined with inner trouble (some real, some artificial)
  b) the western financial support for western-bred communists (something completely foreign to Russia) which was already going on for the previous 20 years prior to WWI
  
  2) The second was achieved by
  a) a false revolution of Arabs (who had never revolted in 1000 years of Turkish occupation)
  b) by ensuring that the most obscurantist chiefs take control over muslim nations
  b) by helping Kemal to rise (yes in spite of Dardanelia and such...) then dragging Greeks in Minor Asia and confusing them to the point of losing and supporting a thorough genocide of the millions of christians in all the peninsula (that was even celebrated by British and French...
  
  In that way:
  
  1) Russia became communist and taken out of the "real world" in a cunning way leaving USA a monopoly.
  2) Middle East as well as the road to Middle East became a muslim only thingie - and really led by obscurantist leaders so they could never hope to get out of their Middle Ages.
  3) "Dangerous" christian populations such as the Greeks and the Armenians were genocided and cleared off the ground so they would never be in position again to threaten western interests in the area like they had done in the end of the 19th century (note Greeks and Armenians in the absence of the genocides and massive emmigration could rise some decades later up to more than 50,000,000 people: with Armenians being top in commerce and Greeks being top in naval industry this point should be a bit more clear).
  
  For me the French and the Germans and the rest were second rate targets. Sounds out of space? Well were did the WWI start?

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  Just to aid a bit more the understanding of my point:
  
  By end of 19th century it was clear that:
  
  1) Apart the poles, it was clear that the globe was mostly known (you would find no other continent).
  2) The one that controls the globe has necessarily to yield control over its center (the triangle from Russia to Iran and Egypt).
  3) Controlling Europe meant absolutely nothing as the Old Continent being a little corner of the Eurasian landmass had little resources to support the second wave of industrialisation.
  
  This is depicted of course by the conduction of war among British and Germans... they were supposedly fighting like dogs in Europe and seemed always to have 100,000s of troops available to send at the same time in Middle East and Africa - no-one was interested really in attacking the other with one decisive hit (which was 100% feasible)... they seemed rather being content in playing up and down obviously directed by the financial circles funding these wars (both wars around 4 years = 4 year financial circle? Hmmm.... coincidence)

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 19th August 2009

  Re: Messages 4 and 5.
  
  Nik,
  
  there you go again.
  
  Warm regards from your friend,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by poppyanddaisy (U14107848) on Thursday, 20th August 2009

  There was indeed numerous and complex reasons for WW1
  
  - rivalry of the great powers - Germany was especially envious of the Global domination of Britain and France - especially in Africa - whereas Germany had relatively few colonies - the Kaiser adding to this by his own personality - fuelled by ambitious generals
  
  - German fear of Russian expansion and dominance
  
  - French fear of German agression - given German unification and the French defeat in the Franco-Prussion War of the 1870's
  
  - Austria-Hungary trying to claw back their faded power - over the Balkans at least
  
  - the Slavonic counries seeking freedom from Austro Hungarian domination - Russian support for Pan-Slavs - very unbstable given the decline of the Ottoman Empire
  
  - Russian domestic strife - trying to recover some prestige after the disasters of the war against Japan in 1905
  
  - British isolationism that had served so well since the Crimean War - was now under threat from the growing aggression of Germany - particularly with the naval arms race between the two countries
  
  - Italian designs on the fading Austrians
  
  - Japanese growing power in the Pacific especially over the Russians
  
  - US continuing to be isolationist - like the UK only it was in Britains back garden
  
  - genuine beliefe that the Balance of Power theory was indeed the way to maintain peace - indeed this had worked for some time - though Europe developing into two armed camps had not helped - given the Anglo-French entente and treaties between the French and Russians
  
  
  I have no doubt missed many - but many peaople agree that WW1 was perhaps inevitable

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Geebuck (U14151919) on Sunday, 27th September 2009

  According to both the book 1914-1918 by David Stevenson and the Channel 4 series "The First World War" based on the book of the same name by Hew Strachan, Britain entered the first world war because she feared her friends almost as much as she feared her enemies.
  
  If the French and Russians won then both would then put enormous pressure on British colonies throughout the world, possibly trying to take them off us. I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this.

  Link to this forum: Alternatives to WW1

  Report message8

Back to top