|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Jan 9, 2017 8:09:47 GMT
Let's just list down what we know about the major countries in discussion and decide based on that, yeah?
Allies:
Serbia: Supported the Black Hand, who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand and made A-H mad. Refused ultimatum.
British Empire: Protecting Belgium neutrality.
Russia: Keeping his word and helping Serbia.
France: Keeping his word and helping Russia.
Central Powers:
Austria-Hungary: Always wanted to attack Serbia. Sent an ultimatum that Serbia was sure to refuse.
Germany: Keeping his word and helping A-H.
May continue from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 8:53:50 GMT
Id agree with all of that.
However on serbia.....you aren't wrong. I don't know if we can just say "but the black hand!" And call it a day, but...you aren't wrong.
Apparently anti-serbian riots broke out in the region because other ethnic groups considered Frank ferdinand the best hope for peace. Kinda stupid to kill him, in retrospect.
Actually pretty stupid, considering all the other crap it started.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Jan 9, 2017 9:22:07 GMT
Did some Google-fu and found out that the first shot was either a British soldier in Belgium or an Australian fort in Melbourne trying to stop a German ship. I'm pretty sure this was only the first shot fired by the British Empire when it entered the war. It was fired by the Australian's at a German Merchant Navy ship as it tried to leave port (I don't think it was actually fired directly at the German's only as a warning shot to force them to stop) just after war was declared by Britain (and therefore Australia). There had already been fighting between at least Austria-Hungary and Serbia and probably also between Germany and France, Germany/France and Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Yi Sun Sin on Jan 9, 2017 9:24:33 GMT
The only reason I voted no was that I don't believe there was a right side in WW1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 9:30:41 GMT
Did some Google-fu and found out that the first shot was either a British soldier in Belgium or an Australian fort in Melbourne trying to stop a German ship. I'm pretty sure this was only the first shot fired by the British Empire when it entered the war. It was fired by the Australian's at a German Merchant Navy ship as it tried to leave port (I don't think it was actually fired directly at the German's only as a warning shot to force them to stop) just after war was declared by Britain (and therefore Australia). There had already been fighting between at least Austria-Hungary and Serbia and probably also between Germany and France, Germany/France and Russia. Hmm. All I know is it probably wasn't a Serb (If it was, well being invaded calls for some shots right?) But to continue, While the first page is covered in British first shots, in other case this proves to be simply a Brito-centric view, and not an world record. Case in point-the age of that serbian boy, which easily beats americans and brits in ww1 and 2. The first wiki page claims an British colonial troop fired the first shot in Africa, days before the first british shot in Belgium WHICH IS IT? Also, only one of the first page links refers to the "real" first shot of the war, Frank ferdinand  |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 9:32:53 GMT
The only reason I voted no was that I don't believe there was a right side in WW1. Fair enough. before I started debating who was right, I acknowledged that WW1 is morally grey. Doesnt stop me from comparing shades though I maintain that without Soviet Union World war 2 would be a war of good vs evil, but thats my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 9:38:02 GMT
I find it accidently hilarious and accurate that without a comma or anything, my comment quickly escalates: The first wiki page claims an British colonial troop fired the first shot in Africa, days before the first british shot in Belgium WHICH IS IT? Read more: european-war-4.boards.net |
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Jan 9, 2017 10:05:05 GMT
Apparently anti-serbian riots broke out in the region because other ethnic groups considered Franz Ferdinand the best hope for peace. Kinda stupid to kill him, in retrospect. Actually pretty stupid, considering all the other crap it started. Yeah. The Austro-Hungarians who wanted war just had to point at ol' Franz and say to those who want peace, "He protected them and look at what they did to him. What will they do to us?" |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 10:18:37 GMT
Apparently anti-serbian riots broke out in the region because other ethnic groups considered Franz Ferdinand the best hope for peace. Kinda stupid to kill him, in retrospect. Actually pretty stupid, considering all the other crap it started. Yeah. The Austro-Hungarians who wanted war just had to point at ol' Franz and say to those who want peace, "He protected them and look at what they did to him. What will they do to us?" Haha, my point went towards the opposite opinion of mine. Well, that's facts for you, it aint always what you want. (saying ww1 sucked is not a fact, but its emotional extrapolation) However, regardless of the black hand, is it right for the whole of Serbia to be punished, and have 22% of its population die? (war was declared, though Austria didn't expect Serbia to resist so well) These days, I don't think most countries would go to war over one assassination. Though if is was proven that another government did it... Of course, I don't know that the black hand=Serbian government, in fact I kinda doubt it did, not entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 9, 2017 10:43:00 GMT
Y'all mythbusting and I'm like "wait, there was a right side of the war too?!?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 9, 2017 10:47:13 GMT
Y'all mythbusting and I'm like "wait, there was a right side of the war too?!?" Thanks for giving me (if Im included in "y'all") the title mythbuster. I'm not entirely sure what you mean but, we all seem to agree that ww1 was morally grey, but IMO that doesn't make it impossible to answer this question (though it was such a massive war objective statements are a tad far-fetched) And the person who made this poll seems to think its a reasonable question.
...I should have just let you say your funny and move on. Napoleon did not fight in WW1 but he had more of a hand in it than Byzantium (actually, if Byzantium never fell, Ottoman would not be in the war ) |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Jan 13, 2017 11:22:22 GMT
Every state had its own stake in it and reason to win and lose. I dont think its a case of whether CP or Allies deserved to win, we should look at the individual countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Jan 13, 2017 11:26:40 GMT
I believe that the German invasion of Belgium was justified. Without getting into politics (this is philosophy more than anything) it is clear that there was going to be an even worse death count for both sides if battle was fought along the Maginot line, or at least the beginning of what the Maginot line looked like during the Great War. The plan with the most moral ground was the Schlieffen plan, going through Belgium to capture Paris for an early victory would have spared the most lives. If England didn't intervene, it is likely that an early victory would be won and many lives would be spared.
Let me know if this is deemed to close to politics and I will delete.
|
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Jan 13, 2017 12:50:08 GMT
I believe that the German invasion of Belgium was justified. Without getting into politics (this is philosophy more than anything) it is clear that there was going to be an even worse death count for both sides if battle was fought along the Maginot line, or at least the beginning of what the Maginot line looked like during the Great War. The plan with the most moral ground was the Schlieffen plan, going through Belgium to capture Paris for an early victory would have spared the most lives. If England didn't intervene, it is likely that an early victory would be won and many lives would be spared. Let me know if this is deemed to close to politics and I will delete. But I agree with Cody from Alternate History Hub that the Germans could have held off the French, no British because no invasion of Belgium, attack Russia, possible revolution there, then attack France when Russia gives up. Considering that the Germans could hold off both the French and the Brits for the war while at war with Russia, I think they could have easily defended against France alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 13, 2017 17:20:46 GMT
I believe that the German invasion of Belgium was justified. Without getting into politics (this is philosophy more than anything) it is clear that there was going to be an even worse death count for both sides if battle was fought along the Maginot line, or at least the beginning of what the Maginot line looked like during the Great War. The plan with the most moral ground was the Schlieffen plan, going through Belgium to capture Paris for an early victory would have spared the most lives. If England didn't intervene, it is likely that an early victory would be won and many lives would be spared. Let me know if this is deemed to close to politics and I will delete. True, their intention was to win the war quickly. However I don't think the German government, or maybe any ww1 government, really cared that much about how many soldiers they expended to win. Only that they did. I concur with Der Kaiserreich , my understanding is that Invading Belgium (nicknamed the rape of Belgium) caused Britain to enter the war. Apparently the German Chancellor called the 1839 treaty on Belgian neutrality "a scrap of paper" Morally, to me invading a neutral country is a reasonable argument against the aggressor, regardless of how many lives would be saved by the way he waged the war he provoked. This is not an analogy against your point, but funny that the most moral decision in WW2 would be Germany starting war in 1938, since they would be beaten easier (or so I think) "Every state had its own stake in it and reason to win and lose. I dont think its a case of whether CP or Allies deserved to win, we should look at the individual countries." While it might be silly to judge this war, I am very much a believer in truth, so we could simply tally up the individual countries. |
|
