A century ago Europe begun its suicide

I am of the opinion that WWI was a far more shocking war. Nobody had seen anything like it in the history of the world. Napoleon was about as close as we'd come, but innovations in chemical weapons, machine guns, etc made it that much more brutal.

More than that, WWI firmly established the 20th century as one of widespread nihilism.

 

I agree with you to a certain extent as WWI the point in which warfare changed to a form we're much more familiar with.

However WWII killed far more people and in equally more brutal ways.
Not to mention had influenced the way in which the world has formed nowadays.

 

WWI established prototype world government, and set the stage for WWII. Without the first, the second would be unthinkable. People forget that Germany was perhaps the most liberal nation on the planet in the 1800s.

If Greece had been through a post-GFC war not doubt Golden Dawn would have seized control by now. Fascism thrives in wartorn environments, where people are desperate to blame anything.

 

you are right, but in Italy, the different royal families were thrown from their kingdoms and dominions and all the country was ruled by Piamontese Savoia. In Germany was very different.

 

It was Versailles that did it rather than the war itself. And the league of nations wasn't as inclusive and was far more impotent than the UN.

Assuming you mean post 1871 then I'd say that's a matter of perception as they allowed the extermination of the Herrero and Maji Maji and working conditions weren't that much better than say the UK for example.

I think that it's really more the economy that influences the growth of the far right. I'm not excluding the fact that war does play a part in it I don't think that it's the sole prerequisite.
And I'm not sure what you mean by GFC?

 

Exactly, Versailles and the others treaty, like Mr Churchill thought the disintegration of the Habsbourg (Austro-Hungarian) Empire was the biggest mistake of the twentieth century

Right again, but German did nothing different than the British in South Africa or Ghana, French in Algerie, Italian in Ethiopia, or belgians in Congo (or Portuguese in Mozambique or Spaniards in Morocco). In 1905, German acted under the laws of war in the event of a rebellion (I think It was worse the behavior of the 8 powers in China, in 1900). I think we can´t judge the 1900 facts under the mental parameters in 2014. Germans acted legally in herera rebellion.

I think German workers had better condictions: Social Security, pensions, unemployment insurance, etc etc. The "social" state is an invention of Bismarck. Britain was more liberal but not social security... the famous London´s East End, Whitechapel etc in 1888 lacked of any equivalent in Berlin or Wien. In 1914, Britain was the Third Industrial Power in the world: First USA, Second German Empire, and Third, United Kingdom. The British foreign trade still accounted for 13% of the world total and the capacitance of its merchant fleet, 44% World total.

About Fascism is not worse than socialist or communist... It a very similar totalitarian ideology. Britain is one of the only country fought against the whole of totalitarian ideology: Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and Communism.

Regards

 

Not quite. The British concentration camps in SA or Cape colony as it was known weren't actually built for malice. It was incompetence that killed them and of course there wasn't much in the way of immunisations so when disease spread it killed more than it should have by today's standards.
And I'm not quite familiar with Ghana so could you elaborate on that for me?

And Indochina although they shot people on the rumours of dissent and of course in an extra judicial manner.

Libya which is where Grazziani gained his first butcher title as the butcher of Fezzan.

The whole world was appalled by that. Even J.Conrad abhorred Leopold's activities and that it strayed heavily from the principles of colonialism.

I'm aware of the Rif war and the acts of the regulares but I'm not familiar with the rest of it.

I don't think that there were conventions regarding extermination or genocide. So technically they acted lawfully although that doesn't mean that it was right though.

If that's the case then why did so many Germans feel dissatisfied with the societal changes and then emigrate to the Americas?

Well I'll take you word for it as I don't want to stray too far from the first post.

After France fell there really wasn't anyone left.

 

It is always nice to share posts with you.

You are right. I wasn´t referring only to the Boer War, but the wars British fought in South Africa.. for example Xhosa Wars or in Rhodesia in 1895-97, Ghana is about Ashanti wars...in all these wars the British destroyed the cattle and drove the tribes from the land that they lived ((and they divided the land between white settlers or gave it to rival tribes) ... I do not censor anything. It seems hypocritical to criticize men lived in 1890 with the corrupt and hiper hypocritical parameters in 2014.
And you well say: French in Algerie in XIX century, or king Leopold in the Free State...nobody killed more in Africa than belgian... and in Congo never was a rebellion similar to the Herera or Maji Maji.

+ 1 Exactly against Senussi.. and in Ethiopia, italians used gases... banned in that time..

Today word genocide means nothing.. another concept manipulated... only It is possible speak about genocide from 1945... and genocide I only know the Shoah and Kmer.. not even the armenian genocide by ottomans in 1915 was exactly a "genocide" like Shoah, It is more similar to the British in Transvaal or Spaniards in Cuba or Yankees in Philippines.
Germans acted accordingly as all other countries behaved at that time...We can not judge men lived 110 years ago, fighting thousands of miles from home, heavily outnumbered and without "internet", no radar, no satellite, no planes, no electronic communications etc etc etc. Like all those phonies and hypocrites who judge the Sixteenth Century Spanish Conquistadores or the eighteenth century, British settlers in Virginia.

It was the era of the Industrial Revolution and the relocation of the working masses.. and you forget that Britain was the first country in the world about migrants.

1871 to 1880: United Kingdom: 1.016.000 people left Britain to to seek a better future abroad. Germa Empire: 462.000
1881 to 1890: United Kingdom: 2.567.000. German Empire: 1.362.000
1891 to 1900: United Kingdom: 2.610.000 German Empire: 530.000

While British emigration abroad increased in the last decade of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, German emigration was greatly reduced after 1890 with the rise of German industry.
In the year 1909, for example, United Kingdom had 282.000 emigrants (185.000 from England and Wales, 53.000 from Scotland and 44.000 from Ireland), while in German Empire in 1909 had 25.000 emigrants (10 times!!!! less emigrants than Britain)

There are many factors that explain why Britain was the country with more migrants in the World: I think the propiety of the land (tenure), the lack of a public social protection, the seaborne dominions and the reduction of industrial power in favor of a financial economy.

Exactly. From June 1940 to April 1941, Britain fought alone against the nazism and fascism. + 1 for Mr Churchill and the British people.

Regards

 

Sleepwalkers, Christopher Clark is one of the best history books I've read. Because rarely does a book changes, based on data, evidences and logical deductions, the vision that you have about something as important as the First World War. And it happens that, for the retrospective influence of World War II, in which the guilt of Nazi Germany is evident, given that much of the public assumed that World War II was in many ways the completion of the First WW we tend to believe that the primary responsibility for the war which twice destroyed Europe was essentially Germanic.

It is true that it was admitted, at least since Keynes's book, that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany so that he could lead a rematch, which finally took the Nazi way. However, the undoubted intellectual importance of totalitarianism and the fact that the Fascist and Nazi totalitarianism were reflection of communist political son of the First World War, has caused an almost complete lack of interest on the causes of the Great European War, as it was called at first. We thought, well, what matters is what the WW1 harboring of WWII and its intellectual value lay in the little that looked like what since 1917 -origin of the USSR - and not-Versailles 1918, has marked the world.

Well, after reading the book of Clark, How Europeans went to war in 1914 which helps us understand better what happened. And the worst is that the agony of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and a quite peaceful Europe which the Empire occupied an essential place.

I refer to Clark and his excellent book to check with the lethal strength of numbers, the result of this effort in the war that, in essence, was the responsibility of Serbs, Russians and French, with the active complacency of British diplomacy.

I want to stress, however, what less is emphasized in the general account of WW1: diplomatic and political paralysis of Austria-Hungary after the assassination of the heir to the throne, which led to take almost a month not to attack but present an ultimatum to the Serbs-the terrorists were criminals murderers under Apis´ command, but the responsible were the Serbian government and nationalist media - an ultimatum that they were willing to accept if Russia and France not convinced that they would protect them militarily Austria-Hungary.

It is clever: Responsibles: Guilties:

1º- Serbia
2º- Russia
3º.- France

Not Guilty:

1.- United Kingdom

Innocents:

1.- Habsburg Monarchy
2.- German Empire.

Regards

 

What if's show options, and when dealing with future events it's a good way. When dealing with past events, it may be interesting, too. It is said, that there were plans to restore Austria-Hungary in a form around this time. In Germany it would probably depend on the monarch. Just like with the German Presidents the right-wing press would probably try to find something to go against them. In this context we may be more like England than we are like Holland. The German press, the tabloids like to write about aristocracy.

The power of the monarchy was limited during WWI. The influence of the German Kaiser to government decisions ... or military decisions, was close to zero in 1914 and later. The German government was thinking of Wilhelm II as being completely incompetent ... friendly spoken ... and they were correct about it. Maybe he would have made a good sergeant, but he would not have been a good general.

 

The main problem for the future of Austria was the behavior of Italy. Our country changed side [betrayal is a word quite commonly related to Italy in war ...]. Since Italy gained territories from the former Empire, it's difficult to imagine that other entities renounced to independents or to "pieces" of it ...

 

Thank you. I try my best and it's good to converse with you as well.

True but with Xhosa they were very belligerent and attacked both British and Boer settlers and they did have a history of violence before the British arrived at the cape.
Not much choice really but to punish as they didn't stop their aggression.

True. That was a very dark chapter in human history.

Actually gas itself wasn't actually banned but bombs containing gas were. They got around this by using so called gas projectors which is something the belligerents used during WWI.
The projectors relied upon wind direction in order to be used against the enemy but still a very inhumane weapon.

A lot of people confuse genocide with extermination with the former having several legal definitions.
The biggest problem I have with both genocide and extermination is that it's not enforced as we've had several truly nihilistic societies and the world did little to nothing to stop it (Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan e.t.c.)

The intentional extermination of people was beyond the morals and standards of the time even if some people think it was ok as some people still do today.

interesting. Do those numbers include Britons who went to British Imperial territories or non-British nations?

Interesting.

Well sometimes uncouth and rude people such as the Nazis really had to be shown more than a strongly worded letter.

And thanks for post #84

 

I think like you, so we don´t differ in almost anything

It´s worst. The word Genocide means nothing nowadays due to use and abuse of the word "Genocide" serving to the political manipulation, the double standar and the hypocrisy of Mass Media.

Extermination of people came from Paleolithic and was due to lack of financial resources for everyone, survival and other factors. No great human empire (even the Assyrian) exterminated by exterminate, they always had a reason to do: protect the Emipre, conquering by terror etc etc.

Include the britons who went to British imperial territories, of course.

Regards.

 

There's always common ground somewhere and it's good that we can debate things without being unpleasant to one another.

True. It has been tossed around unfairly in some instances.

True, but times have moved on and we don't have the same problems just different ones.

That might be an unfair comparison as many people would take the opportunity even if things were good back home.

 

I don´t know why is an unfair comparison. It is logic britons emigrated to British dominions like Australia or Canada than the US.. German lacked of great dominions and I can´t imagine german emigration to Cameroun, Namibia or New Guinea...It is like the French, they emigrated to Algeria or the Spaniards to their former dominions. Emigration is emigration.

Right. But today words like Honor, dignity, reputation, decency, honesty and shame are continuously manipulated. Nowadays the language is a technics of manipulation. And the manipulation wants to direct the attention and thought of Receiver. words like genocide, terrorism, fascist, racism, pacifist, ecologist, solidarity , tolerance etc etc etc means nothing...There is a book (in Russian language) very interesting: The manipulation of the Consciousness (Sergey Kara-Muza: Манипуляция сознанием) It is a very interesting book to know how the Mass Media and Power manipulate people using feelings, televisions, radios and the most important: The language. Genocide today means nothing: the Duke of Alba or the Duke of Wellington would be considered like genocides or criminals of wars today...by the Media.

1914 - 1918 was different, each country fought convinced that their cause was right.

 

The restoration of Austria-Hungary is happening with the aid of the EU. Not as a political unity, but as an economic one. Austria-Hungary was the second largest country and the third most populous country in Europe prior to WW1 and the market in that country was so big, that pretty much everything produced could be sold within its borders. The restoration of an Austro-Hungarian economy is therefore the goal of the EU among others.

I must say that I miss the old Habsburg family in Austria. At least Britain has in the Queen a representative of the country which unites Australia, Canada, Britain and whomever else has her face on their money. This symbolic unity enhances psychologically the people. The Habsburg family could create that in central Europe. Czech, Slovak, Hungarians, etc. could feel symbolically connected more to Austria and work closer with the representatives, instead of fighting or working against each other.

 

The demise of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was possibly the biggest mistake of the twentieth century. The Habsburg Monarchy would have prevented the spread of Nazi Germany to the east and communism not have proceeded westward.

 

Slavonic and Hungarian people was trying to get autonomy or independence since the 1840-ties at least ... just like Italian people. The assassins killed the person, who was in favor of a three nations Austria-Hungary, German, Hungarian, Slavonic. This was probably a big problem for Slavonic nationalists. Slavonic nationalists were waiting for a situation, when Austria-Hungary ... and Russia ... were in trouble. They got support from France.

 

In fact, Germany missed the chance to become an important trade bridge between East and West in the nineties. Austria did much better about it. When I was in Ukraine, I saw more promotion from Austrian companies than from German companies.

The effect of a monarchy may be more folklore, Australia probably does much more business with the US than with the UK. Big business is international anyway, this does not mean, that common cultural values don't matter.

 

Austria and Hungary were mainly allies of Germany in WWII. Otto von Habsburg liked to see Austria as the first victim of German expansion, and the Hungarian conservatives like to see Hungary as the last victim of German expansion. Austria-Hungary may probably not have been ally of Germany, Adolf Hitler hated Austria-Hungary. He probably went to Germany to avoid the Austro-Hungarian draft.

 

If you think to the historical conflict between the Italian States before, than the Italian Kingdom, with the Austrian power, you can understand why there are Italian historians who wonder about that alliance. Substantially it was an alliance among 3 monarchic establishments who were quite concerned about the arising popular power [you know Socialism / Communism, but also Western liberal democracy ...].

 

Austria and Hungary were mainly allies of Third Reich in WWII... but not Austria - Hungary or if you prefer Habsburg States... Habsburg weren´t nationalist... and they hated nazism and comunism... Austrohungarian Empire would have been a kind of embankment against totalitarism...and yes, Hitler hated the Empire because of the Polyglot and multiracial nature. The Kaiser didn´t like to use geographical names ...he prefered "Seine K und K Apostoliche Majestät".

 

I am not so sure if it was Europe having committed suicide through WWI. The Zionists having lured the USA into the war for receiving Palestine as reward (Balfour Declaration) required the German, the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires to be destroyed. The destruction of the Ottoman Empire took an important identification and normative authority from the Islamic world, the installation of a "Western Style" state on Arabic soil left us with the MidEast/Islamist conflict in which we have to waste our energy and resources today.

 

Russia, maybe even Japan, would have matched such an alliance. Russia and Germany did not have many different interests, except for Russias alliance with the Entente. Italy had interests in Africa and in the Balkans. The Entente was smarter in solving the interest conflicts in Africa. The French going to Tunesia put Italy more to The German, Austro-Hungarian side, but the invasion in Bosnia made this history. Austro-Hungary may have been concerned, that a strong Serbia, supported by Russia, would have making them lose their southern Slavonic regions ... and their only connection to the sea.

 

There would have been an enourmous economical potential in such an union, too. This region was rather developed at this time, and I'm not sure, if independence actually helped the nations economically so far. Austria is still on the top, when it comes to wealth and life standards. The European Union may serve a similar purpose, in the long run.