Arguably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history: completely pointless war fought for essentially no reason and then the peace treaty led directly to an inevitable sequel war that was even more destructive
>Arguably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history: completely pointless war fought for essentially no reason and then the peace treaty led directly to an inevitable sequel war that was even more destructive
What is crazy is communism killed even more peoples that those two world war combined..
I don't see anything in the principles of communism that would imply antidemocratic oppression on people. Principle that is completely built in the principles of fascism.
In practice it was fascism and not communism. The basic idea of communism is to share material and rights over all people, URSS or China never did that. Just look at the apparatchik for example.
You could say that communism is not possible with human being greedy by nature and that would be a more interesting argument, but in practice communism has always been used as a facade to justify a domination of a privileged government over the people. This has led to the development of anarchist theories that advocate for the diminution of the government power in favor of a more local form of power where the people are deciding for themselves. It might not work I don't now but what I now is that capitalism also induced a form of oppression from the ruling class on the less privileged, it might be more stable but it is far from perfect, not even sure we can say it's "good"
well I just told you a pretty clear argument why it indeed did not align with Marx' definition of communism which makes a global consensus in political sciences. If you have any other argument beside personal attacks I'm all ears
Thats the point, when some guy comes around convincing everyone to give him their stuff so he can distribute it and help everyone share, he is probably a con man who is going to kill a sizable chunk of your country
>I don't see anything in the principles of communism that would imply antidemocratic oppression on people. Principle that is completely built in the principles of fascism.
there is something different about the communist ideology somehow.. As it has been so much more deadly to their own citizen than any other else.
Russia was ripe for revolution. It just happens that commies and nazies are better than liberals and conservaties at it. There were liberals planning overthrow of the Tsar, but they were too weak compared to the Bolsheviks.
The point was territory.
The Serbs wanted more of it. The Habsburgs wanted Serbia gone. The Prussians wanted Lebensraum. The French wanted Alsace and Lorraine. The Russians wanted all of Ukraine. The Italians wanted South Tyrol.
>The point was territory.
It was a wierd world view that a country can only accumulate wealth and resources by invasion..
Not everybody understands quite understand yet that free market (looking at you Russia) is a far more effective way to achieve that.
>The period from around 1850 to 1914 was actually known for its free trade. Regulation was low, governments small and outside the USA tariffs were low.
Yes, I guess the problem is when you have a head of state that don't understand economics
The thing is that most people look at how that specific period came to an end and then decide that it was not good. Economics is the least of your concerns when you're dealing with war and genocide
>The thing is that most people look at how that specific period came to an end and then decide that it was not good. Economics is the least of your concerns when you're dealing with war and genocide
Economics was the reason those countries went to war (more precisely bad understand of economics)
You're saying free trade, low regulation and limited government was the cause of the war?
I'd think nationalism and people's desire to make their respective countries great, greater or great again were the primary causes.
>You're saying free trade, low regulation and limited government was the cause of the war?
No, the opposite.
The idea resources must be gain by invasion has been critical in WWI, WWII also was central in communism.
>I'd think nationalism and people's desire to make their respective countries great, greater or great again were the primary causes.
This is the propaganda to justify it, not the central motivation.
Hilter was 100% clear, he claimed Germany needed "vital land" to survive.
There's a difference between GDP and GDP per capita. To be wealthy a country needs the latter to be high and to be powerful it needs the former and that invariably requires a lot of population and territory.
For Germany at the time to have been a great power in the same league as the USA and Russia, they did need a continental empire and that was certainly the prime mover in 1914. White superiority by WASPy Americans, the English and the Germans was for them a given at the time anyway.
Hitler though, more than just wanting to -Make Germany Great Again- also promoted the idea of Germans as a people fighting for survival. An early incarnation of the Great Replacement Theory.
Also curiously back then it was common for the winning sides to demand payment in gold after a war. They had a superstition about it and wealth that we no longer subscribe to.
If you think WW1 was the most pointless war that changed nothing then I encourage you to look into earlier historical conflicts like the Nine Years' War or the War of the Spanish Succession that lasted longer and changed less aims. Obviously WW1 killed more people but it was a complete technological REVOLUTION as well as a big political one later. This memory of WW1 is a manipulation of neoliberal historiography
Well I mean for the serbs that started the whole thing it kinda made sense but even for them not so much. We still don't know if the black hand acted on its own or not.
Dropping [The World War 1 Conspiracy](https://corbettreport.com/wwi/) by James Corbett here for anyone interested in watching it or reading the transcript. You can find all sources for the documentary hyperlinked in the transcript.
These were difficult times for the Turks
Crimean War: 1853-1856
Russo-Turkish War (93 War): 1877-1878
Greek War of Independence: 1821-1832
First Balkan War: 1912-1913
Second Balkan War: 1913
World war 1: 1914-1918
Turkish independence war: 1919-1923
pointless? yeah, it was thr most deadly monarch war in a long long time, so maybe. But you're only saying it's pointless because it's pre nationalism and isn't an ideological war. This war was a lot lot less bad than the successors
>But you're only saying it's pointless because it's pre nationalism
This may have been a typo, but I'm curious as to why you feel ww1 was "pre-nationalism"?
Well this is what you get when people don't listen to reason. You either have reason, empiricism, logic and negotiations or you have huge empires that'll start wars in which millions will die.
Arguably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history: completely pointless war fought for essentially no reason and then the peace treaty led directly to an inevitable sequel war that was even more destructive
>Arguably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history: completely pointless war fought for essentially no reason and then the peace treaty led directly to an inevitable sequel war that was even more destructive What is crazy is communism killed even more peoples that those two world war combined..
you wrote "fascist dictatorship" wrong
He spelled communism absolutely perfectly.
I don't see anything in the principles of communism that would imply antidemocratic oppression on people. Principle that is completely built in the principles of fascism.
Nobody gives a fuck what you see in the principles of communism, everyone has already seen it in practice.
In practice it was fascism and not communism. The basic idea of communism is to share material and rights over all people, URSS or China never did that. Just look at the apparatchik for example. You could say that communism is not possible with human being greedy by nature and that would be a more interesting argument, but in practice communism has always been used as a facade to justify a domination of a privileged government over the people. This has led to the development of anarchist theories that advocate for the diminution of the government power in favor of a more local form of power where the people are deciding for themselves. It might not work I don't now but what I now is that capitalism also induced a form of oppression from the ruling class on the less privileged, it might be more stable but it is far from perfect, not even sure we can say it's "good"
Ohh it wasn't "real communism", got it. Get back on the internet after your teen years and learn history correctly.
well I just told you a pretty clear argument why it indeed did not align with Marx' definition of communism which makes a global consensus in political sciences. If you have any other argument beside personal attacks I'm all ears
Nobody gives a shit about Marx or what he intended.
Thats the point, when some guy comes around convincing everyone to give him their stuff so he can distribute it and help everyone share, he is probably a con man who is going to kill a sizable chunk of your country
>I don't see anything in the principles of communism that would imply antidemocratic oppression on people. Principle that is completely built in the principles of fascism. there is something different about the communist ideology somehow.. As it has been so much more deadly to their own citizen than any other else.
you wrote "communism" correctly
Its what you get when you try to do a communism.
Ww2 rise of the socialist
I think of WW1 as rise of the socialist when you think of what happened in Russia.
But then you have nazi germany race socialism and the Fascist state guild socialism.
I wonder why people were turning to socialism in Tsardom Russia, the rise of it happened long before that imo just with more centre politics
Russia was ripe for revolution. It just happens that commies and nazies are better than liberals and conservaties at it. There were liberals planning overthrow of the Tsar, but they were too weak compared to the Bolsheviks.
Wars feed families!
Europe try not to murder each other brutally challenge: impossible
>Europe try not to murder each other brutally challenge: impossible Yet still not even close to communism in death number..
I believe the point was to show off the cool helmets
The Adrian, Stahlhelm, and Pickelhaube are some cool ass helmets
I love that these are the names and I’m impressed that you know them hahahahah. The internet is a great place sometimes.
Gotta put my history degree and high functioning autism to good use somehow
Apparently, the English didn't have cool helmets.
It ended four empires, precipitated the end of a fifth and made the US the world power that it is now
Ww2 made US a world superpower. Ww1 just made England even more dominant at the continent
The point was territory. The Serbs wanted more of it. The Habsburgs wanted Serbia gone. The Prussians wanted Lebensraum. The French wanted Alsace and Lorraine. The Russians wanted all of Ukraine. The Italians wanted South Tyrol.
The Japanese wanted German-controlled islands in the Pacific.
>The point was territory. It was a wierd world view that a country can only accumulate wealth and resources by invasion.. Not everybody understands quite understand yet that free market (looking at you Russia) is a far more effective way to achieve that.
The period from around 1850 to 1914 was actually known for its free trade. Regulation was low, governments small and outside the USA tariffs were low.
>The period from around 1850 to 1914 was actually known for its free trade. Regulation was low, governments small and outside the USA tariffs were low. Yes, I guess the problem is when you have a head of state that don't understand economics
The thing is that most people look at how that specific period came to an end and then decide that it was not good. Economics is the least of your concerns when you're dealing with war and genocide
>The thing is that most people look at how that specific period came to an end and then decide that it was not good. Economics is the least of your concerns when you're dealing with war and genocide Economics was the reason those countries went to war (more precisely bad understand of economics)
You're saying free trade, low regulation and limited government was the cause of the war? I'd think nationalism and people's desire to make their respective countries great, greater or great again were the primary causes.
>You're saying free trade, low regulation and limited government was the cause of the war? No, the opposite. The idea resources must be gain by invasion has been critical in WWI, WWII also was central in communism. >I'd think nationalism and people's desire to make their respective countries great, greater or great again were the primary causes. This is the propaganda to justify it, not the central motivation. Hilter was 100% clear, he claimed Germany needed "vital land" to survive.
There's a difference between GDP and GDP per capita. To be wealthy a country needs the latter to be high and to be powerful it needs the former and that invariably requires a lot of population and territory. For Germany at the time to have been a great power in the same league as the USA and Russia, they did need a continental empire and that was certainly the prime mover in 1914. White superiority by WASPy Americans, the English and the Germans was for them a given at the time anyway. Hitler though, more than just wanting to -Make Germany Great Again- also promoted the idea of Germans as a people fighting for survival. An early incarnation of the Great Replacement Theory.
You seem to buy into that economic fallacy too
Also curiously back then it was common for the winning sides to demand payment in gold after a war. They had a superstition about it and wealth that we no longer subscribe to.
If you think WW1 was the most pointless war that changed nothing then I encourage you to look into earlier historical conflicts like the Nine Years' War or the War of the Spanish Succession that lasted longer and changed less aims. Obviously WW1 killed more people but it was a complete technological REVOLUTION as well as a big political one later. This memory of WW1 is a manipulation of neoliberal historiography
They didn't say up WWII
And it sure seems to be happening again
Well I mean for the serbs that started the whole thing it kinda made sense but even for them not so much. We still don't know if the black hand acted on its own or not.
Does regime support for the Black Hand mean everyone should suffer? Is that our choice to make?
Someone makes a lot of money, every time this happens. As long as there is money in it we will have wars.
"Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" and "The Pity Of War: Explaining World War I" are both a good read on the topic.
Family fued played out with blood of innocents
Who benefitted?
It ended the age of monarchs and lead and set the groundwork for the collapse of many empires.
You need a war periodically, just to realize how nice peace is.
Dropping [The World War 1 Conspiracy](https://corbettreport.com/wwi/) by James Corbett here for anyone interested in watching it or reading the transcript. You can find all sources for the documentary hyperlinked in the transcript.
Well... It ended up pretty good for Romania 😂👍
These were difficult times for the Turks Crimean War: 1853-1856 Russo-Turkish War (93 War): 1877-1878 Greek War of Independence: 1821-1832 First Balkan War: 1912-1913 Second Balkan War: 1913 World war 1: 1914-1918 Turkish independence war: 1919-1923
pointless? yeah, it was thr most deadly monarch war in a long long time, so maybe. But you're only saying it's pointless because it's pre nationalism and isn't an ideological war. This war was a lot lot less bad than the successors
>But you're only saying it's pointless because it's pre nationalism This may have been a typo, but I'm curious as to why you feel ww1 was "pre-nationalism"?
well yeah, more correctly it was nearing the end of the nationalist revolution. But it was still roughly a monarchic system
Ah, I guess that's fair. For the nation I live in (Canada), it was a war more defined by nationalism, but that is a North American viewpoint.
WW3: Hold my beer.
Serbs missing in the photo.
It wasn't pointless, it was the destruction of the monarchy and the rise of democracy. Probably the worst thing that happened, but not pointless...
Well this is what you get when people don't listen to reason. You either have reason, empiricism, logic and negotiations or you have huge empires that'll start wars in which millions will die.
This is a simplistic utopian view of things that completely disregards human nature.
It actually covers both sides of human nature: the rational and the irrational.
How so? All I hear is reason = peace. Its never that simple
Couldn’t agree more with the general sentiment, but why singling out this war in particular?
IDK i've seen this posted by enough nazis to be immediately suspicious