World War I

General discussions that don't fit in other forums can go here.
Forum rules
Feel free to discuss any topics here. Please use the Politics sub-forum for political conversations. While most topics will be allowed please be sure to be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Message
Author
FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

World War I

#1 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:08 am

World War I is the map of the Classic Map.
What are your guy's thoughts on it...? About the war of course.

Something a little more controversial, in my opinion, England should never have entered the war... Here's the video that changed my mind about the subject, which would articulate the point better than I ever could;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqO5CnnKLtA

Carl Tuckerson
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:23 pm
Karma: 128

Re: World War I

#2 Post by Carl Tuckerson » Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:56 am

A tragically foolish waste. The West never recovered from losing an entire generation of men in the trenches. If the West continues down its tragic path of self-destruction and cultural suicide to extinction, historians will look back on WWI as the beginning of the end.
5

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#3 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:14 am

Watching the video now. Two questions:
1) How do get around the problem of Belgium from England?
2) Can you judge the rightness of an action based on unforeseen consequences?
1

Senlac
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 120

Re: World War I

#4 Post by Senlac » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:20 am

England’s entry into WW1 was an inevitability as was the ridiculous war itself.
There was no consensus in that era that war was by definition bad, either within the ruling class or the populace. It was still viewed as heroic.
Under those circumstances it will only take a nutcase or two to initiate the conflict & everyone else will pile in to get their share of the glory.
One of the few achievements of the conflict was to subsequently convince all sides of it’s total madness. It has helped greatly since to avoid too many repetitions (1939 excepted).
2

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#5 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:56 pm

@osric
1) Germany passing through Belgium didn't need to turn into a permanent occupation.
2) Unforeseen consequences...? The majority of the cabinet knew how bad it would end up.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#6 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:59 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:08 am
World War I is the map of the Classic Map.
What are your guy's thoughts on it...? About the war of course.

Something a little more controversial, in my opinion, England should never have entered the war... Here's the video that changed my mind about the subject, which would articulate the point better than I ever could;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqO5CnnKLtA
Having watched the video. I am unsure how you got to the position that England should have never entered the war. The case for that position was weak at best. It relies on the actors ignoring their own context and accurately predicted the effects and consequences of all the decisions made during the wars. In short, having prefect hindsight and giving up their own cultural beliefs at the same time.

England likely would have been better off if it was not part of the war. However, that is not the same thing as the decision to enter the war.
1

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#7 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:06 pm

osric_athanasius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:59 pm
FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:08 am
World War I is the map of the Classic Map.
What are your guy's thoughts on it...? About the war of course.

Something a little more controversial, in my opinion, England should never have entered the war... Here's the video that changed my mind about the subject, which would articulate the point better than I ever could;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqO5CnnKLtA
Having watched the video. I am unsure how you got to the position that England should have never entered the war. The case for that position was weak at best. It relies on the actors ignoring their own context and accurately predicted the effects and consequences of all the decisions made during the wars. In short, having perfect hindsight and giving up their own cultural beliefs at the same time.

England likely would have been better off if it was not part of the war. However, that is not the same thing as the decision to enter the war.
My position is for England to not enter into the war.
And yes there was a perfectly reasonable way for England to not enter the war, in fact, it was even plausible for them to never enter it. Considering the circumstances, it could have happened, Germany just needed to do a better job of convincing England, Belgium would not have been occupied. The two nations were already culturally tied together.

Also, the question the video tackled, was; In hindsight, was it an overall good for England to enter the war, or an overall bad?

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#8 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:06 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:56 pm
@osric
1) Germany passing through Belgium didn't need to turn into a permanent occupation.
2) Unforeseen consequences...? The majority of the cabinet knew how bad it would end up.
1) Germany moving through Belgium was the breaking of a treaty with England. This stuff starts wars all through history. In diplomacy, players will fight due to this stuff all the time.

2) The majority of the cabinet did not know how bad it would get. Compare this war to the Franco-Prussian War, the Russian Japanese War, the Boer War and Crimea. These are the most recent relevant historical experiences that they had to draw on.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#9 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:15 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:06 pm
osric_athanasius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:59 pm
FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:08 am
World War I is the map of the Classic Map.
What are your guy's thoughts on it...? About the war of course.

Something a little more controversial, in my opinion, England should never have entered the war... Here's the video that changed my mind about the subject, which would articulate the point better than I ever could;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqO5CnnKLtA
Having watched the video. I am unsure how you got to the position that England should have never entered the war. The case for that position was weak at best. It relies on the actors ignoring their own context and accurately predicted the effects and consequences of all the decisions made during the wars. In short, having perfect hindsight and giving up their own cultural beliefs at the same time.

England likely would have been better off if it was not part of the war. However, that is not the same thing as the decision to enter the war.
My position is for England to not enter into the war.
And yes there was a perfectly reasonable way for England to not enter the war, in fact, it was even plausible for them to never enter it. Considering the circumstances, it could have happened, Germany just needed to do a better job of convincing England, Belgium would not have been occupied. The two nations were already culturally tied together.

Also, the question the video tackled, was; In hindsight, was it an overall good for England to enter the war, or an overall bad?
The question of the video is "Britain Should Not Have Fought in the First World War", which is not the same thing as "In hindsight, was it an overall good for England to enter the war, or an overall bad."
Almost no one disagrees that that World War 1 was a overall bad thing.
The first question is if the decision makers at the time made the right choice. The context and information at the time matters far more than some unknown result in the potential future. You can not blame the Serbian Black Hand for Hitler's rise to power as they could have not possibly predicted that result.

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#10 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:18 pm

osric_athanasius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:06 pm
FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:56 pm
@osric
1) Germany passing through Belgium didn't need to turn into a permanent occupation.
2) Unforeseen consequences...? The majority of the cabinet knew how bad it would end up.
1) Germany moving through Belgium was the breaking of a treaty with England. This stuff starts wars all through history. In diplomacy, players will fight due to this stuff all the time.

2) The majority of the cabinet did not know how bad it would get. Compare this war to the Franco-Prussian War, the Russian Japanese War, the Boer War and Crimea. These are the most recent relevant historical experiences that they had to draw on.
1) Correct, it does, but should it have...?

2) And when looking at all the wars anyone could have seen, continental wars happen quickly, and are really just for the powers of Europe to have a little 'tussle' England though mainly kept out of wars like that, with 'splendid isolationism' why? Because they knew it was the best way to keep themselves in power, diplomatically, and it WORKED. No one wanted to go to war with Germany, and no one should have, it was a few war mongerers that pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. It could just have easily gone the other way, and ended up as the 6-day war it should have been.

Also as a side note, I'm pretty sure Russia would have never gotten involved if England didn't sign unto the Anglo-Russian alliance.

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#11 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:21 pm

Also, the moderator, in the beginning, most certainly said that we should not involve ourselves in what could of beens, and simply talk about was it all worth it? As I think the man named Dominic said, was what we got really the best choice, was there no better alternative...?
If a long war was going to be fought, which was CERTAIN when England entered the war, the treaty of Versailles was getting dropped regardless.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#12 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:28 pm

Some links and stuff I have had fun looking into the WWI over the last few years.
Eric Sass 4 years of articles on a week by week on the war:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29163/wo ... aty-berlin
A podcast on the diplomacy before the of the start of the war:
http://www.wdfpodcast.com/july-crisis-a ... ry-project
A more generalized look at the world before the war and the war itself (podcast):
https://historyofthetwentiethcentury.com/
Dan Carlin's Podcast on the WW1:
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardc ... ageddon-i/
I am still reading the Guns of August so I can not make comment on it but it is considered a classic.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#13 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:21 pm
Also, the moderator, in the beginning, most certainly said that we should not involve ourselves in what could of beens, and simply talk about was it all worth it? As I think the man named Dominic said, was what we got really the best choice, was there no better alternative...?
If a long war was going to be fought, which was CERTAIN when England entered the war, the treaty of Versailles was getting dropped regardless.
That is the problem of the two speakers for the original position, their arguments revolve on "what could have beens".
1

MajorMitchell
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:05 am
Location: As directed by The Fire Breathing MemSahib, Her Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating​ cakes
Karma: 130

Re: World War I

#14 Post by MajorMitchell » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:32 pm

I haven't seen the YouTube thingy .. I'm not a YouTube watcher.i.would suggest that England entered the Great War because of it's treaty obligations & other reasons. (popular domestic suppt , public enthusiasm & a belief in a quick war & victory as an example)
By the time England is presented with the choice of entering/not entering the war, it was already too late to not enter imho. The Great War imho starts in the two most disfunctional Absolute Monarchies of the time, Austria & Russia.. Austria drags Germany in, partly due to mutual incompetence & that (German mobilisation & invasion of Belgium) & Russia's​ actions drag in France and England.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#15 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:34 pm

osric_athanasius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm
FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:21 pm
Also, the moderator, in the beginning, most certainly said that we should not involve ourselves in what could of beens, and simply talk about was it all worth it? As I think the man named Dominic said, was what we got really the best choice, was there no better alternative...?
If a long war was going to be fought, which was CERTAIN when England entered the war, the treaty of Versailles was getting dropped regardless.
That is the problem of the two speakers for the original position, their arguments revolve on "what could have beens".
I actually think the Moderator should have defined his statement more clearly. Is he talking about specific events that could have had different results or more general decisions? There are a thousand shades to that statement that could make the debate impossible to have.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#16 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:39 pm

MajorMitchell wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:32 pm
I haven't seen the YouTube thingy .. I'm not a YouTube watcher.i.would suggest that England entered the Great War because of it's treaty obligations & other reasons. (popular domestic suppt , public enthusiasm & a belief in a quick war & victory as an example)
By the time England is presented with the choice of entering/not entering the war, it was already too late to not enter imho. The Great War imho starts in the two most disfunctional Absolute Monarchies of the time, Austria & Russia.. Austria drags Germany in, partly due to mutual incompetence & that (German mobilisation & invasion of Belgium) & Russia's​ actions drag in France and England.
The interesting thing about England is the odds of them going to war without the Belgium issue is low. The popular support and key politicians were against it before Germany entered Belgium.
Once Germany invaded Belgium then public support swings to war and the anti-war politicians like David Lloyd George agree that the war is necessary.

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#17 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:42 pm

Here is his quote:
"We are not here to talk about the origins of the first world war,
not to talk about who's to blame,
not if we should have hung the Kaiser,
not to talk about the Versaille treaty and how it laid the foundations for the 2nd world war,
no alternative history prior to 1914,
~~~
we are sticking strictly strictly to the motion of Britain should not have fought in the first world war."
I have to go now, I'll be back, last statement;
Germany was going to collapse if it did any big 'hegemonies ' over the continent like John Charmley stated.

osric_athanasius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:13 am
Karma: 5

Re: World War I

#18 Post by osric_athanasius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:01 pm

FlaviusAetius wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:42 pm
Here is his quote:
"We are not here to talk about the origins of the first world war,
not to talk about who's to blame,
not if we should have hung the Kaiser,
not to talk about the Versaille treaty and how it laid the foundations for the 2nd world war,
no alternative history prior to 1914,
~~~
we are sticking strictly strictly to the motion of Britain should not have fought in the first world war."
I have to go now, I'll be back, last statement;
Germany was going to collapse if it did any big 'hegemonies ' over the continent like John Charmley stated.
I do not believe the statement Germany would collapse. It was considered socially progressive in some regards and fairly cohesive. There were issues, yes.
But enough to break the system and the nationalism, no. Germany strategy for controlling European territory at the point was puppet rulers based on the peace with Russia.

Now compare this to England which actually has a serious case for civil war brewing in Ireland. It was the war that kept a lid on it for a while. Even then there was an actual uprising during the war.

dargorygel
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:55 pm
Location: Over the rainbow
Karma: 920
Contact:

Re: World War I

#19 Post by dargorygel » Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:37 pm

(GREAT discussion... thanks,folks!)

FlaviusAetius
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:15 am
Karma: 90

Re: World War I

#20 Post by FlaviusAetius » Wed Apr 17, 2019 4:41 pm

There must be easier ways of deciding a way to avoid a civil war. Like giving concessions, so the less radical ones would cave in, and the more radical ones could be stamped out.

Also yes, it was a great discussion, I'm about to have this same debate with my friend when we come back from Spring Break, in our physics class(we abandoned physics in that class xD) and this was a good warm-up

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests