Mirakai wrote:Blame Themistocles. If he hadn't orchestrated the defense at Thermopylae, Western Civilisation as we know it wouldn't have ever risen in the first place
That's actually immensely unlikely. It's not like the Israelites stopped being Israelites or the Egyptians stopped being Egyptians under Persian rule, and far from Persian culture overtaking that of the people it conquered, the Achaemenid Empire instead adopted Aramaic as its lingua franca (Not that Persian was replaced in the regions it was a day to day language, but it didn't die. Kind of like Greek remaining the main language in the eastern half of the Roman Empire).
Indeed, when Athens submitted to Persian quasi-rule a few decades earlier (To scare off the Spartans), exactly nothing changed. The Greek cities under Persian overlordship in Anatolia didn't experience serious changes, either.
There is basically no reason for Greek culture to die out just because the Persians are around. Rome already exists. Carthage is unaffected.
A Persian conquest would certainly have had a cultural impact, but the idea that western civilisation would never pop up because of it is... Highly questionable.
Geilinor wrote:No one nation is to blame for the war, but Austria-Hungary started off by being far too aggressive towards Serbia.
Was it?
Fifteen years earlier, Britain and South Africa drove the Boer Republics into a war for reasons that basically amounted to 'Gib clay' (And the British public blew up because the Germans dared to congratulate the Boers for stopping outside support for an attempted insurrection. Hah).
Sixteen years earlier, the United States went to war with Spain under the pretext of Spain allegedly planting a mine on one of its warships (Actually the consequence of poor safety measures in the coal bunkers/magazines). While Spain did technically declare it, even congress determined that the war had been on since the US launched its blockade of Cuba.
Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary... Had the successor to its throne shot by a terrorist who was supported by the Serbian intelligence service (Not the government, granted - but the incompetence of the Serbian government doesn't change the involvement of its rogue organs, and thus the need to act against them), and it actually waited for a month and resorted to an ultimatum instead of blockading and invading straight away. By the standards of its era, Austria-Hungary was incredibly soft-spoken. Which, admittedly, might've caused the war. An invasion straight away, too fast for Russia to react or for public opinion to get over the whole 'Archduke and wife shot, that's the kind of thing bad guys do, right?' thing, and it might've been nothing more than a border scrimmage between Austria-Hungary and Serbia.
Admittedly one Austria-Hungary would've been embarrassed by, given the results the Serbs achieved during the war, but hey.
In any case and for that matter, even by the standards of modern times, Austria-Hungary's actions were perfectly adequate. Note the American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after Afghanistan rejected the American demand to hand over Bin Laden. Which reminds me - one of the conspirators escaped to Montenegro and then left for Serbia. No prosecution on Serbia's part.
So yeah. Austria's concerns that any Serbian investigations into the matter would fail to do anything whatsoever were quite justified. Because that's exactly what happened.
A Colony Of Canadas wrote:I say Austria. They intentionally made their ultimatum to Serbia nearly unacceptable to provoke war. By war's end, Germany was the one being treated like it was the one that started it. Compared to that, Austria got away scot-free.
Wat
No, seriously, wat?
Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. As did the Ottoman Empire.
Germany didn't do too badly when compared to the other two, either, what with continuing to exist. The same applies to Bulgaria (The terms it got are quite comparable to the ones Germany got). Austria-Hungary... Didn't.
And it's worth noting that the very clause of the ultimatum that Serbia took exception to was the clause that risked Serbia not being able to protect the people involved in the murder-plot - the participation of Australian police in the investigations in Serbia. Note, not control, merely participation. And at a time when Serbia had already stopped the investigations into the affair (Without tangible results, one might add).
That's not 'Unacceptable', that's 'Wanting justice after Serbia refused to grant it on its own'.
Pristinian Preserve wrote:Of the major parties, Austria did not want war, because of her internal dissent, Britain did not want war, because it offered nothing that Britain wanted, Russia certainly did not, because of her humiliation in 1905, France feared war, because of her defeat in 1871. The Turks did not want war, because their empire was already on its knees. Germany alone was confident, provided that it got in the first stroke. The war between Austria and Serbia was a sideshow.
Ya'know, in the period leading up to the war, Britain threatened its oldest ally - Portugal - with war unless it ceded African territories that interfered with Rhodes' cape to cairo plan. Britain attacked the Boers. Britain intervened in the Sudan.
German East-Africa was the last obstacle remaining in Britain's African ambitions. Meanwhile, Fisher proposed a pre-emptive strike against the German navy. Twice.
That doesn't exactly look like 'Not wanting war' to me.
Russia mobilised happily to 'Support Serbia' - which it understood to involve the annexion of Austrian territories with Polish and Ukrainian minorities. Not exactly 'Not wanting war', either.
And France saw a decent opportunity for revanche once everyone got in on it.
Now, this does by no means mean that Germany didn't join the war relatively happily, either - while Wilhelm II actually went out of his way to prevent it, the general staff wasn't exactly unhappy with the conflict in order to solve Germany's precarious strategic situation. But saying that the others weren't is... quite ridiculous.
Now, the Ottomans joined in response to Britain seizing its almost-finished battleship and Britain + France failing to guarantee the Ottomans' territorial integrity after the war (Because they didn't want to offend Russia). They were indeed screwed by politics, with no significant desire to join the war until the ententé made it obvious that it'd screw them over regardless of what it did.
The Blaatschapen wrote:I blame Belgium. If those uppity southerners never had revolted then there would be no treaty of London. No treaty of London means no UK using that scrap of paper as an excuse.
Also, no German offensive in the west.
The German-French border was fortified all to hell, attacking through it was suicidal (As the French learned when they tried to do just that and got murderised). And a Netherlands + Belgium would be just a touch too strong for Germany to disregard as a non-issue.
The war would likely go vastly differently. A failed French offensive in the west (As historically), while Germany and Austria-Hungary push eastward. The additional pressure from actually having a decent chunk of the German army pushing into Russia would relieve pressure from the Austro-Hungarians (Who were hilariously crushed by the Russians OTL), while Britain would, in the absence of a blatant casus belli, likely wait for a bit before joining officially (Supplying France with loans and arms shipments straight from the start, though).
France would be in much better shape for the conflict on account of not losing a healthy percentage of its industry to the German attack, while Russia would generally do worse. British and Italian entry into the conflict circa 1915, I reckon. Belgium might or might not be convinced to join a year later.
Tactics and technology still wouldn't advance any faster than OTL, so the western front should remain relatively stable throughout 1916 (Though I do expect the combined Anglo-British forces to make some headway - not much movement, but what movement's there would be on German territory), while Russia may already collapse. Not a guarantee, but that is a fair bit of extra pressure put on it. Might keep Romania neutral that way, too.
Negotiated peace in 1917, Germany loses all its colonies and cedes the French-speaking parts of Elsass-Lothringen to France, Austria-Hungary loses some Italian-speaking clay, Serbia survives relatively untouched, Russia loses the Baltic territories, Finland, and its Polish-speaking territories (Now an independent Poland aligned with Germany and Austria-Hungary, as was the plan OTL, even formally put in action in 1916, most of the territory in question still being in Russian hands then notwithstanding). The willingness to go for a total finish will, particularly on British side, likely be lower. It's not a fight for raw survival for France, either. And with Germany concentrating on the eastern front from the start, Ludendorff never rises to power (He'd likely be stationed in the west instead), making Germany less boneheaded-retarded about the whole peace-thing.
