In Honor of Remembrance Day: The Questions That Sparked World War I

[SilentScope001]

I know many people love, er, I mean, know of WWI.

 

However, I am afraid people are not so interested about the actual questions that sparked World War I. The actual debates, the struggles. Okay, I don't know much either, but I do remember only two questions during that time period. I need you guys to answer them. In Honor of Remembrance Day.

 

Question of the Balkans: Should there be a pan-Slavic state, known as Yugoslavia? There were lots of nationalist setinment to unite the Slavs, which were in the indepedent nation of Serbia and in Bosna-Hergizationa, controlled by Austria-Hungray. In fact, a terrorist wanting this pan-Slavic state killed the Archduke of Austria, which sparked World War I. (Yugoslavia attacked Serbia in response to this terror attack, and Russia was allied to Serbia. The entangling alliances led up to Britian, France, and Russia to battle against Austria, Germany, and the Ottaman Empire)

 

Question of Netural Waters: Should a netural nation trade with nations that are at war? And if they trade with nations that are waging war, are they therefore justifiable targets and should be bombed in order to stop the enemy from gaining resources? Germany did use u-boats to sink netural (american) ships, and the British mined waters in order to sink netural (american) ships as well. Has the neturality of a nation violated if they don't follow this sort of thing? And what about civilian deaths on those trading vessels?

 

And, should Germany follow international law and state to the enemy that their ship will be attaked before attacking said ship?

 

Alright, so that second question didn't start World War I, but it did lead to American involvement in the war, on the side of the Allies.

[Darth InSidious]

Personally, I've always viewed it as the inevitable result of the Arming of Nations...

[Jvstice]

 

 

Question of the Balkans: Should there be a pan-Slavic state, known as Yugoslavia? There were lots of nationalist setinment to unite the Slavs, which were in the indepedent nation of Serbia and in Bosna-Hergizationa, controlled by Austria-Hungray. In fact, a terrorist wanting this pan-Slavic state killed the Archduke of Austria, which sparked World War I. (Yugoslavia attacked Serbia in response to this terror attack, and Russia was allied to Serbia. The entangling alliances led up to Britian, France, and Russia to battle against Austria, Germany, and the Ottaman Empire)

That's a matter of local soveriegnty. If their own governments are willing to merge and cede power, and the people want peace enough in their own lands, they'll do it. If they don't, it shouldn't be imposed on them against their will. The 90s invasion of Serbia was because we decided we had a right to prevent them from balkanization. I don't know that's right any more than preventing their unification. Better to live and let live in the first place.

 

Question of Netural Waters: Should a netural nation trade with nations that are at war? And if they trade with nations that are waging war, are they therefore justifiable targets and should be bombed in order to stop the enemy from gaining resources? Germany did use u-boats to sink netural (american) ships, and the British mined waters in order to sink netural (american) ships as well. Has the neturality of a nation violated if they don't follow this sort of thing? And what about civilian deaths on those trading vessels?

Whether justifiable or not, any nation takes a risk in arming one side or the other in a conflict. You can't tell me that they didn't know what they were getting into by merely playing both sides off the other for profit. Raise the stakes enough to someone else's fight, and you will be brought into it. Any other way of looking at your own country's self interest is the height of folly.

 

Don't arm nations in conflicts that you can't live with it if one side or the other turns against you.

 

And, should Germany follow international law and state to the enemy that their ship will be attaked before attacking said ship?

 

Alright, so that second question didn't start World War I, but it did lead to American involvement in the war, on the side of the Allies.

Yes, they should. But since when does "should" have anything to do with actual practice in times of war? Nations decide in their own percieved best interest. None act altruistically when setting policy.

[JediMaster12]

Part of what contributed to the war also had to do with the way diplomacy was handled. When Edward died he was the last of what is called the Olympian statesmen. Then came the alliances that were formed. England and france and France and Russia, England and Belgium, etc.

Kaiser Wilhelm II screamed encirclement and he surrounded himself with men who distrusted everyone. The Kaiser also was too forward and outspoken and had a manner that was standoffish. In short he was not like Edward. The Kaiser also was attempting to be like the great sea nations of Britain and Spain by building a fleet which of course raised tensions with his European neighbors. Of course Germany made alliance with Austria and the Baltic areas that kind of thing.

Then of course when we have the the assassination of Archduke Fernindad II, it starts the war. He was killed in the Baltic so that brought in its allies and one by one in order to honor treaty commitments, the major powers of Europe were brought into war. Austria/Germany was surrounded and had a war on two fronts. Of course I could go in how the generals of both sides thought they had the edge but were fighting the last war. Forget the fact that the Germans had a machine gun that did more damage than shell blasting. Any way I think part of the reason for the war had to do with how diplomacy was handled in the early 20th century. Funny thing is that all the rulers of Europe were related to each other ending at the matriarch of Britain Queen Victoria.