India, Pakistan, and Kashmir

[Rasputin_Vol]

Still boils down to money. Europe had massive armies they had a hard time justifying the cost for prior to WWI.

Meh... I think it had more to do with Britain reaching the end of it's empire and noticing that their biggest rival (economically/industrially) on the continent since the 1860's was the Germans.

 

[Grand Vol]

Meh... I think it had more to do with Britain reaching the end of it's empire and noticing that their biggest rival (economically/industrially) on the continent since the 1860's was the Germans.

Which boils down to?

Money.

 

[Velo Vol]

Franco Prussian War

This was 40 years before the war.

If you go back and look at what happened between the assassination and the declarations of war, you'll see mostly (bad) diplomatic assumptions and miscommunications, and not a lot of long-term strategic planning.

July Crisis - Wikipedia

Meh... I think it had more to do with Britain reaching the end of it's empire and noticing that their biggest rival (economically/industrially) on the continent since the 1860's was the Germans.

England was the last major power to declare war. How could it have been the cause of it?

 

[hog88]

Train schedules and switch stations played a big role in the start of WWI.

 

[Burhead]

This was 40 years before the war.

If you go back and look at what happened between the assassination and the declarations of war, you'll see mostly (bad) diplomatic assumptions and miscommunications, and not a lot of long-term strategic planning.

July Crisis - Wikipedia





England was the last major power to declare war. How could it have been the cause of it?

Once the mobilization keys were pressed there was no stopping that train. Its kinda crazy to think in a matter of 5 days the world went from a state of peace to mobilization and throwing Europe in a state of war the world hadn't seen before.

 

[LouderVol]

This was 40 years before the war.

If you go back and look at what happened between the assassination and the declarations of war, you'll see mostly (bad) diplomatic assumptions and miscommunications, and not a lot of long-term strategic planning.

July Crisis - Wikipedia





England was the last major power to declare war. How could it have been the cause of it?

well yeah you aren't going to see long term planning over a short period. But you had the alliances before hand. pretty sure that was all decided before the assassination. they had all planned ahead for A war, but you are correct to say it wasn't set up specifically for WWI.

 

[Velo Vol]

Train schedules and switch stations played a big role in the start of WWI.

How?

Once the mobilization keys were pressed there was no stopping that train. Its kinda crazy to think in a matter of 5 days the world went from a state of peace to mobilization and throwing Europe in a state of war the world hadn't seen before.

The Russian mobilization was the key one, wasn't it?

 

[Burhead]

How?

The Russian mobilization was the key one, wasn't it?

Yes. It was the Russian move to general mobilization that resulted in Germany declaring its own on August 1st (same day the French decided to as well). The Russian move was because of the Austrian declaration of war on the 28th but they been partially moving since July 25th. A Serb started the crisis but you could say the Russians are what triggered the global conflict.

 

[hog88]

How?

The Russian mobilization was the key one, wasn't it?

Read.

 

[VolStrom]

Let me ask you something. What country in recent history has had a better first hand look at both Russian and American weaponry than Turkey?

If Russia really does offer POS technology, then why is Turkey, which I'm sure has witnessed both countries' best systems in action in Syria, even considering purchasing SU-400s?

You think we sell our best technology to countries like Turkey? Military technology that's really old gets sold to, as Trump would call them "S" hole countries. Our newer stuff gets sold to out allies like the UK and the newest stuff gets field tested in Israel. Russia needs cash so they sell anything they have to anyone that has the bucks.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Which boils down to?

Money.

Didn't disagree with the money angle, I disagreed with the standing armies argument.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You think we sell our best technology to countries like Turkey? Military technology that's really old gets sold to, as Trump would call them "S" hole countries. Our newer stuff gets sold to out allies like the UK and the newest stuff gets field tested in Israel. Russia needs cash so they sell anything they have to anyone that has the bucks.

OK

 

[Burhead]

Read.

View attachment 197436

Will add it to my list, like this time period of history isn't my strongest. I really need to take some time to really dive into it.

 

[hog88]

Will add it to my list, like this time period of history isn't my strongest. I really need to take some time to really dive into it.

It’s a hard read but really interesting.

 

[Grand Vol]

Didn't disagree with the money angle, I disagreed with the standing armies argument.

Eventually, you're going to have to justify having that large an army. Sometimes you create an enemy to justify letting it fight.

We've done it, the Soviets have done it, China did it. Most countries have done it at some point.

 

[Velo Vol]

Control and access to resources. Why did everyone need allies? Look at the world map after the war. Germany lost a lot of its overseas colonies.

That's Monday morning quarterbacking. You can't assess behavior before the war by what subsequently happened.

well yeah you aren't going to see long term planning over a short period. But you had the alliances before hand. pretty sure that was all decided before the assassination. they had all planned ahead for A war, but you are correct to say it wasn't set up specifically for WWI.

The myth about the Iraq War is that neocon influencers in the Bush administration say 9/11 as an opportunity to reshape the Middle East.

If you review the records from July 1914, you see that's not the kind of thing going on here. Instead, leaders were reacting in almost pin-ball style to what everyone else was doing. Had the timeline of a few events in the final days of the month been altered by as few as 12 hours, the situation might have played out completely differently.

 

[Velo Vol]

Another thing about WWI--it became clear to many even in the first year that the war wasn't what their particular nation had "signed up for." But once things heated up no one wanted to back down. And then you saw some of the other other supposed justifications for the war (e.g., nationalism, ideology) start to build as a reason for the fighting.

 

[LouderVol]

That's Monday morning quarterbacking. You can't assess behavior before the war by what subsequently happened.

ok, look at the alliances before the war. the european nations had already fought wars over those overseas colonies, its not like the Brits decided they wanted the German colonies AFTER the war. that was a pre-existing desire

The myth about the Iraq War is that neocon influencers in the Bush administration say 9/11 as an opportunity to reshape the Middle East.

If you review the records from July 1914, you see that's not the kind of thing going on here. Instead, leaders were reacting in almost pin-ball style to what everyone else was doing. Had the timeline of a few events in the final days of the month been altered by as few as 12 hours, the situation might have played out completely differently.

it appears random, but even in a "pinball" situation, there are reasons set before events started moving that directed which directions things would go. at least it narrowed down the number of ways things could have gone.

everyone knew another war on the European land mass was coming. with all the alliances, most people already knew which side they were on. as you pointed out the ideology only came after. they knew why they were fighting before a driver made a wrong turn down the wrong alley.

 

[Velo Vol]

ok, look at the alliances before the war. the european nations had already fought wars over those overseas colonies, its not like the Brits decided they wanted the German colonies AFTER the war. that was a pre-existing desire

it appears random, but even in a "pinball" situation, there are reasons set before events started moving that directed which directions things would go. at least it narrowed down the number of ways things could have gone.

everyone knew another war on the European land mass was coming. with all the alliances, most people already knew which side they were on. as you pointed out the ideology only came after. they knew why they were fighting before a driver made a wrong turn down the wrong alley.

(1) These German colonies are what plunged Europe into war?

(2) Regarding empires, UK, which had the most to gain, was much more ambivalent about fighting Germany than France/Russia were. At it's heart, it was a conflict about Europe.

(3) It's argued that in 1914 the outlook for peace was stronger than in the preceding years because two Balkan wars had come and gone without expanding into larger conflict.

(4) Another lecture. Around 45:00+ he makes an interesting distinction that seems to be playing out in this thread. If you ask "Why did WWI start?" the answer is more framed in the bigger picture (alliances, empires, so forth). If you ask "How did WWI start?" the discussion is a bit different, focusing on events in July 1914. It becomes more about breakdowns, and less about blame.

 

[LouderVol]

(1) These German colonies are what plunged Europe into war?

(2) Regarding empires, UK, which had the most to gain, was much more ambivalent about fighting Germany than France/Russia were. At it's heart, it was a conflict about Europe.

(3) It's argued that in 1914 the outlook for peace was stronger than in the preceding years because two Balkan wars had come and gone without expanding into larger conflict.

(4) Another lecture. Around 45:00+ he makes an interesting distinction that seems to be playing out in this thread. If you ask "Why did WWI start?" the answer is more framed in the bigger picture (alliances, empires, so forth). If you ask "How did WWI start?" the discussion is a bit different, focusing on events in July 1914. It becomes more about breakdowns, and less about blame.

I wasn't making ANY point you seem to be arguing. or disagreeing with them.

If anything I am on the "why argument", which includes resources, you know the whole Empire thing. if it wasn't for that "empire aspect", the events of 1914 would have been irrelevant.

 

[Velo Vol]

If anything I am on the "why argument", which includes resources, you know the whole Empire thing. if it wasn't for that "empire aspect", the events of 1914 would have been irrelevant.

Maybe we're taking about empire differently? Was Austria-Hungry on a quest for resources in 1914? Was Russia?

 

[carlos86]

Meanwhile in Kashmir.
Shelling and small arms fire ongoing across THREE sectors along the LOC: Rajouri, Poonch, and Nowshehra.

 

[carlos86]

1 Indian soldier killed in Rajouri...
Casualties in KarishnaGhati are High... Indian posts are burning.

 

[Purple Tiger]

It was little more than drang nach osten. Germany wanted more European territory, mainly at the expense of Russia.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Yes. The last President was competent.

Once the market gets over the sugar high and people realize Trump has abandoned Europe, things might get dicey. That's why I'm buying silver by the kilo.

Real men buy gold.