Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Salus Maior]

He was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist group that had ties to the Serbian government. There's no reason to suppose anyone else was involved and saying otherwise is just baseless conspiracy theory.

I can think of someone who was involved...

Time traveling Moseley, I knew it.

[Novus America]

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.

Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.

Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.

[Napkizemlja]

Yeah, I'm sure Alexios Komnenos asking for aid had nothing to do with it.

He certainly wasn't expecting the First Crusade. He was probably just expecting a few thousand mercenaries; not half of Europe.

That is a given but to say that religion wasn't the driving force is wrong. The main non-religious factor was Pope Urban II attempt at quelling the numerous petty wars between knights and the lower nobility as well as attempting to increase Papal authority on the nobility of Europe.

[North German Realm]

The irony of it is that they could probably have achieved like, two of those goals easier without a war.

I meant "vassalize" France.

Damn autocorrect.

And anyway, which ones could they have achieved without war?

Putting the Low Countries in their own sphere of influence. That was easy -and could have been done by diplomacy easier than by warfare.
And (I assumed you meant vandalize) France, because France was basically kicking its own ass to the point that all Germans needed to do to make sure France would be weakened was to, well, not put them in a positive spotlight in Continental and International Politics.

The only one that would be impossible without a war -at some point- was Russia, and that was because any form of support for national self-determination (in the fake way they did in Ukraine in 1918 anyway) would require their eventual military support.

But Vassalizing France? Nah, that wouldn't be possible without a war.

[Old Tyrannia]

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

And Fascists.

Fascism didn't benefit from the First World War, so much as it was created as a result of it. But I agree with your general point.

[Nea Byzantia]

He certainly wasn't expecting the First Crusade. He was probably just expecting a few thousand mercenaries; not half of Europe.

That is a given but to say that religion wasn't the driving force is wrong. The main non-religious factor was Pope Urban II attempt at quelling the numerous petty wars between knights and the lower nobility as well as attempting to increase Papal authority on the nobility of Europe.

Religion was a driving factor on the surface. On a political level, the Pope wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel; and the Italian banking clans wanted a piece of the Silk Road and the economic prosperity of the East.

[Kowani]

The only thing you could potentially blame Britain for is taking a bit too long to make its position clear to the Germans; maybe if they had been a bit faster in indicating that they would go to war if Belgium's neutrality was violated then perhaps the Germans would have avoided launching their attacks. That is about it. Everyone was looking to the UK to find a diplomatic solution to the July Crisis and the British government certainly gave it a shot to avoid a war. The idea that Britain had Franz Ferdinand assassinated is baseless beyond belief and fueled by nothing else other than your Anglophobia.

Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.

The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.

Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.

[North German Realm]

Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.

The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.

Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.

Serbia had no access to the Black Sea though

[Nova Cyberia]

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.

Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.

Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.

As you said, they should have gone with the eastern plan.

But honestly, their crushing victory during the Franco-Prussian War made them arrogant. They figured they would be able to quickly defeat the French again.

[Nova Cyberia]

And Fascists.

Fascism didn't benefit from the First World War, so much as it was created as a result of it. But I agree with your general point.

The Poles and the Baltic states benefited from it since it restored their independence, if only for a short time.

[Kowani]

Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.

Serbia had no access to the Black Sea though

Well, not directly. I believe the phrase is “domino effect” in that AH would’ve snapped up the rest of the Balkans. (Or at least, that’s what the Russians thought.)

[Salus Maior]

That is a given but to say that religion wasn't the driving force is wrong. The main non-religious factor was Pope Urban II attempt at quelling the numerous petty wars between knights and the lower nobility as well as attempting to increase Papal authority on the nobility of Europe.

Religion was a driving factor on the surface. On a political level, the Pope wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel; and the Italian banking clans wanted a piece of the Silk Road and the economic prosperity of the East.

...The Crusaders wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel, by swearing fealty to the Byzzie Emperor and helping him reclaim some cities? (They broke off later, of course, but they attacked the Muslims not the Byzantines)

[North German Realm]

Serbia had no access to the Black Sea though

Well, not directly. I believe the phrase is “domino effect” in that AH would’ve snapped up the rest of the Balkans. (Or at least, that’s what the Russians thought.)

It was possible that the Austrians could use their alliance with Germany to get Bulgaria to help them with that, I suppose, or their alliance with the Ottomans to do the same, but that would be done without Serbia too. If I recall correctly, The Austro-Hungarian Empire had no plans of large-scale annexations in Serbia to the point that it could bring them that close to the Black Sea.

[Nea Byzantia]

Religion was a driving factor on the surface. On a political level, the Pope wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel; and the Italian banking clans wanted a piece of the Silk Road and the economic prosperity of the East.

...The Crusaders wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel, by swearing fealty to the Byzzie Emperor and helping him reclaim some cities? (They broke off later, of course, but they attacked the Muslims not the Byzantines)

They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.

[Novus America]

Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.

The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.

Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.

Neither Austria Hungary nor Serbia had any Black Sea access.

[North German Realm]

Well…if Russia hadn’t defeated Serbia, Austria-Hungary would have had dominance over the Black Sea- which is where most of Russia’s trade went.

Neither Austria Hungary nor Serbia had any Black Sea access.

Serbia in particular had no access to open water at all.

[Novus America]

This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.

Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.

Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.

As you said, they should have gone with the eastern plan.

But honestly, their crushing victory during the Franco-Prussian War made them arrogant. They figured they would be able to quickly defeat the French again.

True.

[Old Tyrannia]

Fascism didn't benefit from the First World War, so much as it was created as a result of it. But I agree with your general point.

The Poles and the Baltic states benefited from it since it restored their independence, if only for a short time.

Oh, of course. Thinking about it the list of beneficiaries is indeed somewhat longer than I suggested at first.

Most of the major powers involved in the war did not benefit from it, however.

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

This is absolutely true. They tried to do it all, all at once. Almost succeeded too.
But when you go all or nothing you often get nothing.

Just dealing with the East even after Russia was beaten would have taken years.
Do not try to gain everything in one war.

Win a less ambitious one, spend a few years consolidating and recovering before trying again.

You might say that the world wars were Germany's Napoleonic Wars. Ironically, through the Napoleonic Wars France inadvertently created Britain's hegemony, whereas Germany through the world wars destroyed it.

[Salus Maior]

...The Crusaders wanted to bring the Orthodox to heel, by swearing fealty to the Byzzie Emperor and helping him reclaim some cities? (They broke off later, of course, but they attacked the Muslims not the Byzantines)

They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.

Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.

The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.

[Old Tyrannia]

They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.

Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.

The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.

Not to mention that what happened in the Fourth Crusade hardly has any bearing on the initial causes of the crusades as a whole, which from what I gather is what the initial conversation was regarding. Unless Nea Byzantia believes that the papacy planned the sacking of Constantinople over a century in advance.

[Nova Cyberia]

They attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 1204, and sacked the New Rome; and before that, they had no real intention of keeping their vows; and they didn't.

Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.

The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.

The problem with the Crusaders was that none of them really had any loyalty to the Byzantines (who were the primary ones calling for help from the Pope), and it showed. Rather than returning the territory they conquered to the Eastern Romans they set up their own Crusader states instead.

[Fahran]

What did Italy gain from World War I, other than mountains of dead corpses?

About a dozen Battles of Isonzo and meme infamy.

[Fahran]

The problem with the Crusaders was that none of them really had any loyalty to the Byzantines (who were the primary ones calling for help from the Pope), and it showed. Rather than returning the territory they conquered to the Eastern Romans they set up their own Crusader states instead.

The First and Third Crusades, more or less, accomplished what they set out to achieve. The First Crusade returned Nicaea and much of western Anatolia into Byzantine hands and then proceeded into the Levant where it managed to seize Antioch, Edessa, Acre, and Jersualem, thus establishing independent Christian polities that could safeguard the pilgrimage routes. The Second Crusade subdued the rebellious and treacherous aristocracy of Cyprus, returned Jaffa, Tyre, and the Levantine coast to Christian rule, and imposed a treaty that safeguarded pilgrimage into the Holy Land. But, yes, the First and Second Crusades actively considered the interests of the Byzantines and a substantial amount of time was spent fighting the Seljuk Turks on their behalf, as well as to reestablish the County of Edessa.

[Fahran]

Yes, and they weren't supposed to sack Constantinople.

The Crusade was declared for Egypt, the Venetians steered it off course for their own benefit.

With the Pope excommunicating those involved in the Fourth Crusade for their actions at Ragusa and Zara.

[Kowani]

The problem with the Crusaders was that none of them really had any loyalty to the Byzantines (who were the primary ones calling for help from the Pope), and it showed. Rather than returning the territory they conquered to the Eastern Romans they set up their own Crusader states instead.

The First and Third Crusades, more or less, accomplished what they set out to achieve. The First Crusade returned Nicaea and much of western Anatolia into Byzantine hands and then proceeded into the Levant where it managed to seize Antioch, Edessa, Acre, and Jersualem, thus establishing independent Christian polities that could safeguard the pilgrimage routes. The Second Crusade subdued the rebellious and treacherous aristocracy of Cyprus, returned Jaffa, Tyre, and the Levantine coast to Christian rule, and imposed a treaty that safeguarded pilgrimage into the Holy Land. But, yes, the First and Second Crusades actively considered the interests of the Byzantines and a substantial amount of time was spent fighting the Seljuk Turks on their behalf, as well as to reestablish the County of Edessa.

The People’s Crusade, though…