Who is to blame for the start of WW1?

[Camelza]

Idiotic Jingoism and militarism (as well as the arms and chemical manufacturers who lobbied such policies) by all parties involved.

[Galloism]

You`d better get yout historical facts right; Sarajevo was part of the Habsburgian empire (Austria-Hungary), not of the Serbian Kingdom.

I think Galloism's point was more that under IM's logic, one country could do any number of outrageous things, up to and including murdering another country's leaders, and it would still be the fault of the second country if it went to war in response, since IM argued that the fault always lies with the party that deploys its military along the other party's borders or declares war first. Galloism wasn't drawing a direct comparison between the two scenarios or saying that was what actually happened prior to the First World War.

Quite.

I mean, I can name *lots* of things that would not lead to a declaration of war under IM's retarded ideas.

Sinking merchant ships belonging to a nation's citizens perhaps.

Setting up a blockade in international waters surrounding the nation.

Cutting communications in or out by cutting cables leading from the country, then using electromagnetic interference to block wireless forms.

You can pretty much starve them to death while screaming "I'm not touching you!!!!"

[Napkiraly]

Well, just blame the dumb ass-holes who pretended to be our military leader (gallieni excepted, this man was a freaking hero! ) and who were stupid enough to refuse to change the tricolor red-white-blue uniform even thought they were warned by countless expert and that just because they thought that "It would be better for the moral of the soldiers to bear the colours of the flag". The stupidity of our Generals was astonishing to the point that Clémenceau was indeed right when said that "La Guerre est une affaire trop importante pour la confier à des militaires" (War is a too important matter to entrust it to military men).

I'm no way discounting the ability of the French, fuck, they're the best troops I've ever seen. But they still were unwilling to fight. You can't win without fighting. Of course, with the casualties they took, I don't blame them.

American troops arriving played a big role in restoring morale, but I'd argue it wasn't the defining factor. The ceasing grand offensives for the rest of the year, regular and longer furloughs, and more frequent rotations of front line troops restored French morale by 1918.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm no way discounting the ability of the French, fuck, they're the best troops I've ever seen. But they still were unwilling to fight. You can't win without fighting. Of course, with the casualties they took, I don't blame them.

American troops arriving played a big role in restoring morale, but I'd argue it wasn't the defining factor. The ceasing grand offensives for the rest of the year, regular and longer furloughs, and more frequent rotations of front line troops restored French morale by 1918.

Those are nive. But I can say with confidance that when I get reinforcements that are actually excited to do their job, it's pretty damn morale boosting. There isn't much I know,but I know being a soldier.

[Conserative Morality]

The U.S, however, don't deserve the place you gave them as their arrival had little to no other effect than to boost the moral of the soldiers.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Fresh American troops and American material, I think, sped up the end of the war.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, I would say that even if France was pretty vocal about it's hate of Germany, the "victory" of the Républicain over the last Monarchists and Reactionnary, which could be dated to either the rehabilitation of Dreyfus or the Separation of the Church and the State, finished off Revanchism as an argument of campaign to make it become just another political promise; killing out most of the agressiveness toward the Allemands.

Now, that was before Agadir, which was the incident which really launched the Arm Race in Europe, because this German provocation basically made this argument rise from the deep where it had sunk and fired up the fear and hartred of the "boches" to a point it didn't have reached since the 70' (of the 19th century).

I dunno, considering the buildup of the entente at France's behest, it seems to me that they never really let their revanchist dreams die.

[Resentful Commies]

All nations involved, honestly. Except the US. We're innocent.

[Rusozak]

I'm no way discounting the ability of the French, fuck, they're the best troops I've ever seen. But they still were unwilling to fight. You can't win without fighting. Of course, with the casualties they took, I don't blame them.

American troops arriving played a big role in restoring morale, but I'd argue it wasn't the defining factor. The ceasing grand offensives for the rest of the year, regular and longer furloughs, and more frequent rotations of front line troops restored French morale by 1918.

And also had an adverse effect on the enemy. America didn't save the allies at all, but I do think America helped stop the war from spilling over into 1919.

[Gim]

All nations involved, honestly. Except the US. We're innocent.

Asia wasn't involved in WWI, except for belligerent Japan.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

This was kinda fun, as a take on who is to blame, and how it all went down ...

In the end, I wasn't there, history tends to be written by the winners, and I keep hearing shit crop up all the time about 'but did you know ...' as people continue to study it all.

[Gim]

This was kinda fun, as a take on who is to blame, and how it all went down ...

In the end, I wasn't there, history tends to be written by the winners, and I keep hearing shit crop up all the time about 'but did you know ...' as people continue to study it all.

So, the winners made up blasphemy about the "Nazis", labeling them as evil? Given the plethora of primary sources, I think not.

[Sun Wukong]

This was kinda fun, as a take on who is to blame, and how it all went down ...

In the end, I wasn't there, history tends to be written by the winners, and I keep hearing shit crop up all the time about 'but did you know ...' as people continue to study it all.

So, the winners made up blasphemy about the "Nazis", labeling them as evil? Given the plethora of primary sources, I think not.

You know this is the first world war we're talking about, right?

Anyway, just because winners write history doesn't mean they're always wrong. They just tend to gloss over how they firebombed civilians, and such.

[Gim]

So, the winners made up blasphemy about the "Nazis", labeling them as evil? Given the plethora of primary sources, I think not.

You know this is the first world war we're talking about, right?

Anyway, just because winners write history doesn't mean they're always wrong. They just tend to gloss over how they firebombed civilians, and such.

"Wilhelm's Germany". My bad. I just woke up; forgive me.

[New Educandi]

I am to blame!

[Gim]

I am to blame!

Oh, hey. King Wilhelm.

[Novsvacro]

Nationalist and imperialism caused the War. Most wars.

[Gim]

Nationalist and imperialism caused the War. Most wars.

The question is: Which nation, primarily? My opinion is Germany.

[Chinese SR]

GERMANY! TOO GREEDY!!

[Gim]

GERMANY! TOO GREEDY!!

Japan is partially responsible, because they defeated Russia, and Russia stayed out of war after that, causing Germany to have less buffer from Russia.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Russia at least if we're considering the "start" as the expansion of the war from regional to continent wide. Didn't exactly help that they were using a hypocritical excuse to do so. If they were so worried about the treatment of Slav's explain their treatment of the ones underneath them.

[Conserative Morality]

Japan is partially responsible, because they defeated Russia, and Russia stayed out of war after that, causing Germany to have less buffer from Russia.

Japan's contribution in WW1 was minimal, and besides, Japan and Russia were on the same side. And the Russo-Japanese War was a decade past by WW1.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

GERMANY! TOO GREEDY!!

Japan is partially responsible, because they defeated Russia, and Russia stayed out of war after that, causing Germany to have less buffer from Russia.

that was in 1905, and the Russians fought Germany from 1914-1917. Not well mind you but they did.

[Napkiraly]

Russia at least if we're considering the "start" as the expansion of the war from regional to continent wide. Didn't exactly help that they were using a hypocritical excuse to do so. If they were so worried about the treatment of Slav's explain their treatment of the ones underneath them.

Heavens forbid Russia decides to protect their ally from being pummeled after said ally gave into a very humiliating ultimatum and being quite sick and tired of Austro-Hungary and Germany refusing to hold any sort of conference to avert war.

Russia was trying to avoid a war during the July Crisis, since they knew they weren't prepared. Germany on the other hand was hoping to start a war, since they viewed it as an opportune moment to eliminate their main rivals before they surpassed Germany in military capability (France and Russia).

[Gim]

Japan is partially responsible, because they defeated Russia, and Russia stayed out of war after that, causing Germany to have less buffer from Russia.

that was in 1905, and the Russians fought Germany from 1914-1917. Not well mind you but they did.

Germany confidently built their army, knowing that Russia had damaged forces from Japan, so Japan is still responsible for the WWI aggression.

[Napkiraly]

that was in 1905, and the Russians fought Germany from 1914-1917. Not well mind you but they did.

Germany confidently built their army, knowing that Russia had damaged forces from Japan, so Japan is still responsible for the WWI aggression.

And we can blame Japan having the capability of defeating Russia due to its modernisation. Therefore WWI should be blamed on America, and in specific, Commodore Perry.