So it goes . . .

[dr_volki]

The Austro-Hungarian and German empires invaded Serbia and Belgium which precipitated the invocation of defence alliances involving Britain, Russia and so on, thus started WWI, so pretty much, yes they did.

as far as I know Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and subsequently invading them (starting the war) then all other countries joined in.


even wiki says so. I might be wrong, but I can't remember being taught at school that Germany started WW1.



p.s. saying that I was in Germany in school so they might just made it sound nicer

 

[Fuggan]

inb4religionofpeace.

 

[robgmun]

Indeed I did. Museums, books, films and even the odd computer game.

It's turned into a crapfest now but the first Call of Duty game for the PC is surprisingly good for this, it recreates some of the campaigns from WW2, harrowing playing a Russian where only one gun was given for every two people (which i found out later was entirely true) when they got off the boat

 

[Xordium]

After a trained member of the Black Hand, who were based in Serbia, assassinated the Emperor's heir. Serbia being the country that was starting the breakup of that Empire which was never going to go down that well. Russia being the back of the insurrection. So it's not quite as simple as the two Germanic Empires starting it.

 

[Castiel]

as far as I know Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and subsequently invading them (starting the war) then all other countries joined in.

And Germany invaded Belgium and Luxembourg.

even wiki says so. I might be wrong, but I can't remember being taught at school that Germany started WW1.

Except you missed in your wiki reading the German invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg before the others joined in....

On 28 July, the Austro-Hungarians declared war on Serbia and subsequently invaded. As Russia mobilised in support of Serbia, Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France, leading Britain to declare war on Germany.

The Great War was begun by the invasions in Serbia, Belgium and Luxembourg by the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, precipitating The Russian Empire to come to the defence of Serbia and Great Britain to come to the defence of France and Belgium.

 

[Tunney]

We're lucky that the victors choose what is deemed a war crime.

A firestorm bombing was as bad as a nuke being dropped on a city. The results were horrific and the eye-witness accounts from WWII are tough reading. We're lucky that the Germans never successfully used similar tactics against us.

 

[Freakbro]

Oh, I thought it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

 

[dr_volki]

oh boy wish I hadn't started reading about WW1 now. seems no-one has a straight answer on who's fault it is / who started it.

 

[Castiel]

After a trained member of the Black Hand, who were based in Serbia, assassinated the Emperor's heir. Serbia being the country that was starting the breakup of that Empire which was never going to go down that well. Russia being the back of the insurrection. So it's not quite as simple as the two Germanic Empires starting it.

The declaration was made by the Austro-Hungarians after diplomatic ultimatums were only partially abided by, the war was precipitated by this, causing Russia to mobilise in defence of Serbia...Germany invaded the then neutral Belgium, along with Luxembourg and moved against France, which precipitated the involvement of The British Empire.

So while you are correct in saying it is complex politically and diplomatically, essentially the actual war was started by the Austro-Hungarian and German Empire alliance invading its neighbours in response to what was essentially a building animosity which goes back to a coup in Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian governments annexation of Bosnia Herzegovina. The good old Balkans and their historical animosities and empire building.

In simple terms however, the Great War itself was begun by the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires invasion of its neighbours, as without this it is unlikely the other nations would have invaded Germany or the Austro-Hungarian Empire instead.

 

[Xordium]

Unfortunately simple terms are deceptive though. It would be like a a bloke lying on the floor with a bloody nose pointing at another bloke screaming "He hit me" when in fact the other bloke had hit him because he had been shagging his wife, killed his kid and the bystander who was coming to his rescue as a saviour was the git who had bankrolled it all along.

 

[drs101]

It is 70 years since the firebombing of Dresden, one of Britain's most infamous acts of terrorism and discriminate targeting of civilians and refugees in World War II. Perhaps a little humility would be in order?

wold that be like the discriminate targeting of civilians in London and other city's the Germans bombed the **** out of for years?

 

[TheMightyTen]

Examples? (Remember, we are talking about industrialised nations here, rather than inter-tribal or warfare where the 'civilians' were already combatants by definition, such as feudalism or systems where there was no formalised standing army such as the Mongols.).

Firstly I feel the use of only "Industrialised" nations and the attacking of that industrial infrastructure as the defining example of "Total War" is now quite old fashioned and a legacy of our Imperial past (and somewhat arrogant). Many modern historians view the process as something entirely different and as another strategic tool that has always been used to "win" (or in many cases not lose!) a War, and at it's base is the concept that you attack the other belligerent's ability to make war, whether that is removing it's ability to make weapons, supply fighters, or just feed it's population. None of those targets can directly harm you but they have always been targets whether conventional histories acknowledge it or not. A very good example that is always overlooked in the years leading up to the Spanish Armada and particularly when Drake attacked Cadiz the English were particularly keen to ensure they destroyed or capture seasoned wood stockpiles that would be used for the production of barrels used for food preservation and storage, as a result by the time of the Armada, Spain was struggling to find enough units to victual the fleet and much of the food on board Spanish ships was found to be rotting in poorly made barrels and as such was one of the many contributing factors to it's failure.

As to examples of fairly nasty wars that fought against populations as well as Armies during the 19th century, The Carlist Wars in Spain, The Opium Wars in China, The Crimean War away from the main Sevastapol siege, and the Indian Rebellions (as in India not Native Americans). Prior to that in the earlier part of the century and at the beginning of the Industrialisation process for many European countries, everything was fair game with the Napoleonic Coalitions.

Nonetheless it is point to by historians as being the first such formalisation of 'Hard War' or 'Total War' as a legitimate and acceptable facet of a campaign.

Many historians also see the maturing of the US Nation as an identity and it's growing pains through the medium of the ACW as just the nation growing up and casting off it's false, rose tinted, moralistic, ideals of the revolutionary founders and adapting to reality. The indexing of an event such as Sherman's March to the Sea is a very US centric version of it's place in World history as it really wasn't anything new at all, it was just an attitude change from Federal High Command which possibly accelerated the end of the war. Now the siege of Richmond-Petersburg, there really was an omen of things to come that far to many European powers (and the US itself) failed to learn the lesson of

 

[Schlong&Stable]

The idea of total war and deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as equal to military targets within cities in modern warfare essentially began in the American Civil War with Sherman's 'Hard War'...while other examples such as The Mongol Campaigns can be illustrated, these were not the norm in warfare at the time and seen as barbaric by most combatants. With the advent of Sherman's decision to advocate treating civilians as legitimate military targets he essentially legitimised 'Total War'

The further you go back in history, the more brutal the treatment of civilians becomes. In ancient warfare, defeated cities were ransacked, looted and their citizens bonded into slavery. The sack of Carthage being just one well known example. Slavery was of course rare in Christendom, but the wholesale slaughter of defeated cities was often as much a matter of policy even as late as the Napoleonic wars.

 

[robfosters]

One thing I will say for the OP, he has kicked off a genuinely interesting thread in GD For once. Makes a nice change from the spec me a budgerigar threads.

 

[Castiel]

Unfortunately simple terms are deceptive though. It would be like a a bloke lying on the floor with a bloody nose pointing at another bloke screaming "He hit me" when in fact the other bloke had hit him because he had been shagging his wife, killed his kid and the bystander who was coming to his rescue as a saviour was the git who had bankrolled it all along.

Not really. As we are talking about what or who began the Great War itself, rather than assessing the impact that historical and contemporary political and diplomatic events had on the reason for the initial invasions. Germany's invasion of Belgium for example was unprovoked and a response to Belgium refusing German demands of access for its troops to France. This was precipitated by a German declaration of War against Russia and they invaded Luxembourg and declared war on France. The British Empire declared War on Germany in response, Germany declared War on Belgium. Then everyone just started declaring war on each other and we had was was essentially all of Europe at war with each other. But the protagonists to actual war were the declarations made by the Austro-Hungarians and Germans, precipitated by Serbian refusal to comply with all of Austro-Hungarian demands and the historical animosity in the Balkans.

 

[Castiel]

The further you go back in history, the more brutal the treatment of civilians becomes. In ancient warfare, defeated cities were ransacked, looted and their citizens bonded into slavery. The sack of Carthage being just one well known example. Slavery was of course rare in Christendom, but the wholesale slaughter of defeated cities was often as much a matter of policy even as late as the Napoleonic wars.

You are ignoring the fact that the examples you are choosing there was a very blurred distinction between who was a civilian, in most cases everyone was an actual combatant, either conscripted to militias or part of the defence of the city in question. There were few standing armies and I have explained the difference in how these are defined.

 

[eatcustard]

British bombed Fritzland, leftwing loons cry about it.

Get over it,

 

[EdGey]

I don't think I did any ww2 at all in school. In my experience people my age without a natural interest have next to no knowledge of the war which is a shame.

Documentaries were great for sparking my interest as a kid.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You are ignoring the fact that the examples you are choosing there was a very blurred distinction between who was a civilian, in most cases everyone was an actual combatant, either conscripted to militias or part of the defence of the city in question. There were few standing armies and I have explained the difference in how these are defined.

Yes, there were few standing armies in the ancient era, but that has little relevance to the issue. Do you think that attacking soldiers could not make a distinction between say a small child and a grown man? The slaughter of non-combatants was par of course and had nothing to do with blurred distinctions. It has often been the policy to slaughter, rape, terrorise and enslave your enemies populace. If anything, Western Europe got off lightly during WWII compared to the experiences of their ancestors.

Also, I did not exclusively reference the ancient period. As I said, even as recently as the early 19th century civilians would be targeted. In Spain whole towns were put to the sword by the French in order to stem the guerillas. In fact, look a the War in the Vendée.

 

[wilber]

Meanwhile, here is the OP.....