I want to read about the follow up to WW1. When were the earliest seeds planted?
Its too hard to say where the earliest seeds were planted, because by that logic they were planted when Luther started his religion. In the short term, Bismarck throwing off the balance of power set into motion the process which led to conflict. While he was a very good leader, he created a complex system of relations that were only able to be maintained by himself. The biggest cause for the war, in my opinion, is Wilhelm's autism. He's the one who started the arms race with Britain and made colonial aggressions at France, forcing the two nations to ally with each other. Additionally, he let Russia go off and join the entente, while trusting that Italy would hold up to their promise and support Germany and that the meme empire would be an effective ally.
>>987097
History is all one big story. It's hard to tell when the first seeds were planted.
Napoleon would be a good place to start. His wars got everyone all riled up and hating eachother for a while.
The franco-prussian war certainly helped lead to animosity between france and germany.
as
>>987097
said, bismarks system could only be held in place by a very gifted administrator (which never came along).
Shit tier alliance system didn't help.
The biggest issue was tactical. All of these new weapons (barbed wire, machine guns, artillery) had been invented, but no war had really used them yet. Nobody realized that you couldn't just march in formation anymore, you'd all get mowed down by ropes of machine gun fire.
The inability to seek diplomatic resolution due to pride is the nail in the coffin. These royals couldn't lose face and try to find peace. An idiotic war for no good reason basically destroyed europe. Everything had to be rebuilt over some assholes in serbia. Fucking retarded.
>>987097
do you mean the lead up to ww1?
the follow up to ww1 would be the interwar era and ww2
also for hte former - hew strachan the first world war volume i
>>987097
>earliest seeds
How far you want to go back senpai? We can go go the Franco Prussian war to talk about unified Germany and the latest German-French animosity. Or we can go back to the French revolution and talk about the nation in arms and total war. Or we can go back to the fall of the Roman Empire and the establishment of future alamein and frankish territories.
>>987343
>Nobody realized that you couldn't just march in formation anymore
euroepan armies have not marched in formation in combat since halfway through the 19th century when basically everyone switched to breech rifles and open order platoons of riflemen
>An idiotic war for no good reason basically destroyed europe
by that logic all wars are idiotic and for no good reason
because basically everyone had a reason for the war, such as defending against unprovoked aggression - or indeed on the other side of the spectrum trying to cut down a potential threat and expand your power
>>987364
I think the 'no good reason' sentiment comes from an idea that the cost of those millions of lives weren't worth the cost of old world imperialism and politics. Wwi was sold as a good vs evil war but once the post war plans were understood, it became just another one of those European wars of gib me dat clay. Simply not worth the lives extinguished
>>987364
I didn't mean marching IN battle. I meant marching TO battle. The germans got absolutely rekt be machine gun fire in the early stages because their advance into france was a straight march.
There was a massive western front between france and germany. Why? Because a prince was killed in serbia. Not even a french or german prince. That's a good reason for those 2 countries to go to war? Why? There really should've just been an attack on the black hand from the serbians - end of story. A world war coming from that is just absurd.
>>987422
but the assassination of an austrian prince was not the reason for the war (or rather this particular part of the entire conflict) between germany and france
the reason was german eastward ambitions against the perceived threat of russia and the germans willingness to go to war earlier rather than later - when the great russian remilitarization programme would have been completed - (because of the threat of a two front war etc. etc.)
>>987495
(the assassination merely providing a useful tool, a catalyst if you will, but certainly not "the reason" for the fight between france and germany, neither of whose reasons for fighting were the assassination of an austrian prince in the balkans)
>>987373
well you see but then you have to argue that basically no war is worth it, no?
surely fighting the war was worth it for those who were defending their homeland? i would even argue that (at least early on, before they were defeated) many on the side of those who entered the war with aggression and ambition perceived it as worth it as well?
expansion, influence, conquest, are all rather fair reasons "worth it" enough when it comes to war - and if they are not, then the first paragraph applies, no?
i honestly do not understand this sort of... "not worth it" kind of thinking that surrounds ww1
>>987495
Germany showed no signs of planning to invade France.
>>988168
French Revolution is awesome. It's like a Terentino movie.
Most European powers had perfectly rational reasons for going into WWI.
The Austrians frankly had every right to invade Serbia after the Serb government colluded in the assassination of the Austrian heir.
Russia had left their slavic Serb allies hanging after the Bosnian annexation in 1910 and the First Balkan War. If they let Austria annex Serbia it would show everyone an alliance with Russia isn't worth shit.
Germany was encircled by a hostile alliance and had only one real friend in Europe, Austria. If they abandoned Austria to fight the Russians alone they would lost their only real ally on the continent.
If France let Russia get BTFO by Germany and Austria they would lose their key ally on the continent and their war plans absolutely required Russia to help them against the numerically superior Germans. If Russia was lost as an ally, that would give Germany an unacceptable amount of leverage over them. Plus they were still le buttmad about losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 and wanted it back.
Britain joined after Germany violated Belgium's neutrality.
