• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now. You know who started WW3?

A little bit off-topic, nevertheless:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507
Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report


The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying.

So, probably Germany again.

But just to be on the safe side, when was that German produced submarine operated by Israel last seen?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/de/content/probe-concludes-torpedo-sank-south-korea-ship

So the story changes and now that the UN is asking for a look, the US is admitting the torpedo debris from the sinking comes from a GERMAN torpedo, but we are supposed to somehow assume that a German torpedo still points the finger of blame at North Korea.

Pop Quiz, students; what nation gets their submarines (for free) from Germany and has a long history of using false flag dirty tricks to trick other nations into wars?

Hint: Think "USS Liberty" and "Lavon Affair."


Back on topic...
 
Actually, I would say that WW1 was started by a mentality and general international stance.

The universal doctrine was to strike early and fast, before the enemy can mobilize. Basically to start with a devastating sucker-punch. That wasn't just for Germany and Austria, but really everybody. It has even been described as a "Cult Of The Offensive."

Also, since mobilization was a very disruptive thing to do, it was pretty much understood that if you do it, you use it. A lot of countries didn't even have any plans for a partial mobilization or just going on defensive allert so to speak or anything. It was an already loaded and aimed cannon, so to speak, with all that remained to be done being to pull the rope.

Every country had mobilization plans and attack plans in advance, and the doctrine to basically pull the trigger on that before the enemy can pull the trigger on his.

As you can imagine, that wasn't very conducive to diplomacy. (Not to mention that war and military threat were considered an integral part of diplomacy at the time. Whereas nowadays going "sign here or we shoot" at a neighbouring country would be considered awfully bad form, back then it was ok if you could get away with it.) But anyway, you didn't have time to sit and posture too long, lest the enemy starts his mobilization before you and catches _you_ with your pants down. Ultimatum and immediately attack was the normal doctrine for everyone.

Also, it wasn't just a case of alliances as such, but also a great game where each superpower actively countered and tried to contain, or even backstab, every other superpower. The whole 19'th century was full of examples of just that. E.g., England and France would prop the Ottomans just to counter the Russians, or England would lend its threat to help Japan smack the Russians to contain a perceived danger of Russian expansion in Asia. And then backstabbed Japan at the peace conference.

Serbia happened to be not even important as such, but something that Russia wanted and more importantly something that Russia backed militarily. So a lot of the politics and war plans of Germany and Austria had to do with just not letting Russia get it. Russia's having started a massive modernization of its army in IIRC 1912 just made it a bigger target. Both Germany and Austria were just itching to sucker punch it before it finishes that. (And before that sounds too bad, Britain and France would have punched it instead, if Germany and Austria didn't. _Everyone_ had that great game mentality, and nobody wanted a too powerful Russia.)

It's also often forgotten that WW1 was pretty much a continuation of the Balkan Wars. That area was already a powder keg, and Serbia was already trying to become an empire in the region. Being backed by Russia just made it bolder. Although the Russians did back the more peaceful government of Pasic, the military faction was still basically chest thumping and posturing at every country around, and basically trying to establish Serbia as a new world-class a-hole.

A lot of that posturing was aimed at Austro-Hungarian occupied Bosnia, which the serbian military faction thought it should belong to Serbia. Basically before condemning Austria too hard for that ultimatum, please do remember that the relationship between the two was already strained to near breaking point. Serbia was the new bully in the region, was constantly making threats as Austria-Hungary and generally was giving Austria-Hungary plenty of reason to want to put it in its place once and for all.

Also, Gavrilo Princip who assassinated the Austrian prince _was_ a Serb and trained by the Serbian militarist faction, along with the other two. Or at the very least the Austrian government was at the time convinced that those are Serbian agents, and not just some anarchistic students. And Princip himself may or may not have been an idealist and just wanting Bosnia to be free, that was not what Serbia really wanted. Serbia only wanted a Bosnia free of the Austrians so _they_ can take it.

Etc.

Basically while technically the Austrian ultimatum did start it, that ultimatum didn't happen in a vaccuum. The world back then was really a very different world than right now.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann's explanation seems reasonable. I do not expect too much controversy concerning the causes of WW1.

To sum it up: Europe was a theater of competing powers. Nobody really wanted a big all-out war, it happened more or less by accident.

Far more interesting is how WW1 ended, how America came involved, Versailles, etc. This is where the real controversy will emerge, I predict.
 
However it was Winston Churchill, this prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles from London since the mid-thirties) who really expanded a local conflict into WW2.

I know this has been addressed many times before, but it always fascinates me how the people who claim the holocaust was a hoax never have a problem with typing text that clearly promotes irrational hatred toward the Jewish.

The rest of the text is pretty funny too. So basically, if Britain had just supported Germany in it's attempts to conquer most of Europe and Africa for the Aryan master race, enslaving the inferior races in the process, they wouldn't have gone to war and could have ruled the galaxy together. But the foolish half-Jews insisted on defending the rights of their allies, starting the World War. Oh, those evil, evil Jews.
 
Far more interesting is how WW1 ended, how America came involved, Versailles, etc. This is where the real controversy will emerge, I predict.

Germany was brought to a strategic collapse due to the royal navy blockade and a general running out of men. This resulted in the begining of a tactical collapse forcing germany into what was effectively an unconditional surrender.
 
Basically while technically the Austrian ultimatum did start it, that ultimatum didn't happen in a vaccuum. The world back then was really a very different world than right now.

..........Great summing up. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the details of the actual assination? If the Marx Brothers had of used it as the base of one their movies, they would have been considered to have had even greater comedy genius than their reputation already demands
 
HansMustermann's explanation seems reasonable. I do not expect too much controversy concerning the causes of WW1.

To sum it up: Europe was a theater of competing powers. Nobody really wanted a big all-out war, it happened more or less by accident.

Far more interesting is how WW1 ended, how America came involved, Versailles, etc. This is where the real controversy will emerge, I predict.

No controversy.Some of us have read history books.
 
WW1

The History of the Balkans is complicated and the network of ambitions and counter-claims following the decline and expulsion of the Ottoman Empire led to numerous small conflicts and border tensions. The Catholic Hapsburg Empire was extending its influence in Bosnia and treading on Serbian sentiment. In truth the Austrians had been looking for a reason to deal with the Serbian issue for some time although the assassination of the Archduke was rather more provocation than they anticipated. The Kaiser was on holiday on his yacht when war broke out.

The network of alliances between Russia and Serbia, France and Russia, Britain and Belgium, Germany and Austria led to a domino effect escalation. However, it was the golden age of Empire and a number of these countries were actually keen to bitch slap each other to enhance their global pecking order place. All were confident it would be over "by Christmas".

WW2

Was born out of the bitter frustration of the Treaty of Versailles on the German side. It was the populist feeling in Germany that they had carried the can for a war that was not of their making. Hitler played on this resentment and his offer of restoration of German pride played well in the beer halls. It is doubtful the Nazi movement would have took off were it not for the impositions of Versailles. As part of the mythology sold by Hitler was that Jews, Communists and Liberals had betrayed Germany in 1918. He preached his polemic and thrived on conspiracy and hatred against these people. So, yes the German Nazi movement started WW2 but WW2 was really just WW1 part deux. If WW1 had played out differently and reparations against Germany less vindictive then it is unlikely the German economy would have failed in the 20s and opened the door to the fanatics and extremists of the Nazis.
 
Austria-Hungary started the First world war, and Japan started the Second. Neither is in your "starters" list, but this is your mistake, not mine. It could also be argued that Nazi Germany Started the second world war, though.

McHrozni

Given who posted the list, it is quite obvious that this was not a mistake, but intentional. That poster has his the typical Nazi delusions about history, which of course do not permit him to accept that WW1 was started by part of his "Master Race", and that WW2 began halfway around the world. In his mind, there is only space for the Evil Communist Jewish World Conspiracy aimed at destroying his "Master Race".
 
>9/11-investigator
>Who started both World Wars?
>Spin-off from the holocaust thread.
>continue to chew on his bagel
>prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles
>Joos

Fweeeee goes the dog whistle.

I wish I had a gun that shoots cancer.
 
So who started WW1 and WW2? 'Easy', the average Anglo will say, 'The Germans!'... and he will continue to chew on his bagel and listen to the monotonous rap on his iPod.

Official story v1.0; picture an Anglo guy chewing on gum while saying: Well you see, we have Brits, Yanks, Frogs and Russians basically minding their own business, while all over sudden these darned Krauts tried to conquer the whole world twice. Today Germany, tomorrow ze wurld, you know what I am saying? The second time they killed 6 million Joos in gas chambers and stuff for no reason at all! Can you imagine that? Fortunately the Allies sticked together and taught those evil Germans a lesson. Twice.

Nice stereotyping. That didn't take more than a second of thought whatsoever.
 
#1. The Nazi Germans could have easily reached Palestine and killed the Zionist movement once for all. Why would the Jews take such a chance?

#2. There was no guaruntee the entire Ottoman Empire would collapse. The Ottomans were allowing the Jews to move into Palestine at a steady pace. Why would the Jews mess with such a favorable situation?

The whole idea that "the Jews" are responsible for BOTH WW1 and WW2 is just pathetic and stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom