Who is to blame for WWI?

The author of the video in pic. rel. mentions that Russia was not only lying about Serbia's involvement in the assassination of prince Ferdinand, but also started mobilizing their troops very soon.

And on the other hand, Germany's actions point to the conclusion that they wanted to localize the conflict and prevent it from setting the whole continent on fire. That's why they started mobilizing relatively late.

France and Britain were quite passive. The former could've contained Russia more, but didn't. The later guaranteed Belgium's independence, and not only were they very reluctant to go to war for this small country, the press was overwhelmingly anti-war.

Austria annexed Bosnia in 1908, which pissed off Serbia and Russia. Also, knowing that the slavs are seething, prince Ferdinand decided to make a tour-de Bosnia, effectively laughing in the Serbs' faces, almost taunting them.

Serbia just chimped out and took out the prince, dreaming of the great Serbia.

Those are the main points of the video. It seems that the biggest culprits are the Serbs and Russians, then Austria.

Here's the video:

And what do you guys think? Who was responsible for the most nonsensical war in the history of our civilization?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Germany never made sense to me. They were a powerhouse and they were only growing.
    Austria, the joke of an empire should have just nuked Serbia and be done with it.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany never made sense to me. They were a powerhouse and they were only growing.

      They wanted a general war to assert their dominance over Europe before Russia could modernize
      They stated it explicitedly several times

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >the july crisis started in august.
        ok moron. just ignore all the french and russia's actions because it doesn't suit your narrative

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          STOP THINKING IN COUNTRIES, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE LIKE israeliteS AND FREEMASONS WHO HAVE NO LOYALTY TO COUNTRIES AND ARE INTERNATIONAL MEN

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Schizo comment, but it is true that the israeli involvement is often overlooked.
            I wonder how big part did they play in starting WWI.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        100% the orthodog's (i.e. russia and serbia) fault.

        >They wanted a general war to assert their dominance over Europe before Russia could modernize
        And France and the UK wanted a general war with to assert their dominance over the surging Germany before they became a threat to their overseas empire.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany never made sense to me. They were a powerhouse and they were only growing.

      The Germans concluded that war was better sooner than later because war would be unwinable later.
      They based on the assumption that Russias population would grow at the same rate it was growing in 1910s and thus outnumber Germany in an impossible porportion, and British industrial market would dominate Germany.

      The main source of this is the famous 1912 war cabinet meeting, tho historians dispute whether it actually motivated Germany in 1914 or not, but the fact that it was discussed still tells you a bit on the ongoing nationalistic mentality, and it most likely wasnt reserved for just Germany.
      War was also still very romanticized and optimistic belief as a solution which added to the fact that few states took enough necessary precautions to avoid conflict.
      It's still hard to "blame" anyone. Russia for example is blamed because they began mobilizing, however Russia were also the ones who called for an immediate emergency peace conference in Hague which Germany ignored and instead went on the offensive.
      Serbia is said to have funded the Black Hand organization, while others point out that the government had no real ties to the organization even if many of its members had government seats.

      I'm just going to be a traditionalist and say Austria started ww1 because they had the highest level of agency to make the first and fundemental decision that led to war. They knew Serbia was a protectorate of Russia, and thus the likelyhood of a major war was very real, yet they attacked anyway.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The International israelitery.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Were the Anglos their lapdog at that time already?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ever since Nathan Rothschild loaned the crown the money to fight Napoleon at Waterloo at 30% interest

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          When did he do this anon?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Right after Napoleon returned from exile

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Rent free

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >the Juice

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It’s Germany.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I remember watching a documentary where the historian claimed it was the US that was responsible for WW1. I can't recall exactly the argument but it was something like the US becoming the major industrial power of the world and becoming a global colonial power as well.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      These docus are mosty propaganda. Just watch anything on the 3rd Reich, lie after lie.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Complex question because WW1 was a systems collapse that was triggered by a crisis. The crisis was the fault of Serbia, which allowed the Black Hand to exist as a semi-sanctioned secret society. The systems collapse was the fault of every participant in it, but because of this you can blame any member you want to eg
    >Britian
    Didn't take a firm enough stance against Germany
    >France
    Revanchism
    >Germany
    Blank Check was irresponsible diplomacy
    >Austria
    Invaded Serbia
    >Belgium
    Didn't allow German access
    >Russia
    Irresponsibly puffed up Serbia

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      everyone shits on germany for their unconditional support for austria but why is france's unconditional support for russia always swept under the rug?
      if the french were a bit more hesitant perhaps the russians would have been less trigger happy with their mobilisations
      nikki really wasn't keen on it either and got bullied into it by his generals
      or the french putting all their troops in a token 10km distance from the border "ahktually we didn't really mobilise haha" and then being "surprised" germany declares war. the germs weren't innocent in this either but i think the looser getting all the blame here is a bit one sided. during WWII it was more clear who was in the wrong

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Revanchism

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >everyone shits on germany for their unconditional support for austria but why is france's unconditional support for russia always swept under the rug?

        Because Germany declared war on Russia, France and Belgium in a row.
        Meanwhile, France's half assed support to Russia didnt even make them react when Germany attacked Russia.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >france's unconditional support for russia doesn't count and also germany suddenly declared war on everyone out of nowhere
          must be nice having such a simplistic view on history without ever being bothered by nuance or looking at both sides
          WWI started when germany declared war on france and russia and that's the end of it
          also WWII didn't start when france and the UK declared war on germany because that's different

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The Central powers initiated every conflict until it turned into a world war.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            so did the Entente
            germany and AH really weren't blameless either but warmongering for me and not for thee i suppose

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        French wanted an excuse to take the Alsace and Lorraine département back from the krauts hands

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Good point. Do you think Germany would give it back if France signed a non aggression pact with them?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Germany
            >France
            SEE

            STOP THINKING IN COUNTRIES, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE LIKE israeliteS AND FREEMASONS WHO HAVE NO LOYALTY TO COUNTRIES AND ARE INTERNATIONAL MEN

            YOU FRICKING moron

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Brainlet take.

            ?si=a_ueiWB1G9LL3R4N&t=109

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          And Germany gave them the perfect excuse by declaring war on them

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It’s Germany.

      >The later guaranteed Belgiu- Let invade natural Greece and Persia

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Germany is absolutely to blame for ww1, specifically a clique in control over the German military.

    >NOO THAT'S THE ANGLOCENTRIC TAKE
    And? It so happens to be true.

    Germany literally sent 2 telegrams declaring war on Russia, one if Russia had accepted their ultimatum and one if Russia had not. They had already decided they were going to war before "negotiations" had ended.

    Wilhelm II was unaware of what was happening and sending telegrams that contradicted the actions of the military.

    https://archive.org/details/albertinitheoriginsofthewar1914/page/n595/mode/1up?view=theater

    >On 1 August 1914, a British offer to guarantee French neutrality was sent out and promptly accepted by Wilhelm.

    >Wilhelm then ordered German forces to strike against Russia alone, leading to fierce protests from Moltke that it was not technically possible for Germany to do so as the bulk of the German forces were already advancing into Luxembourg and Belgium.

    >At the same time as the invasion of Luxembourg, on 1 August 1914 Germany declared war on Russia. When presenting his declaration of war, the German ambassador accidentally gave the Russians both copies of the declaration of war, one which claimed that Russia refused to reply to Germany and the other that said Russia's replies were unacceptable

    >what he did not know was that for Germany mobilization would be practically simultaneous with crossing the Belgian and Luxemburg frontiers and thus creating a situation which was irreparable. Even in Germany this was a secret from Tirpitz and perhaps even from the Kaiser, who, as we shall see, at a certain moment tried to hold up the beginning of operations and was not able to do so.

    In 1912 Moltke said "All are preparing themselves for the great war, which all sooner or later expect." German militarists like Moltke, Ludendorff and Hindenburg sidelined Wilhelm II and pressed for war, and the motivation was obvious, the war boosted their careers and gave them power over the country.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      it's france and germany's fault for being historical siblings who can't help but try to murder each other

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    World War 1 was some hidden hand type shit, you should stop thinking in individual countries and rulers or you will never figure it out

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone wanted the war (aside from the brits)

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      wasn't destabilising the continent the british MO? it probably still is
      the german empire back then was an abolute technological giant and to some degree it still is

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        samegayging here but probably also the reason the germans were high on their own farts. if only bismarck was immortal, his talent for geopolitics was on another level

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What's funny is it's well documented that Russia and France had a lot more to do with the outbreak of war than Germany did but 9/10 "people" will still repeat in this thread standard Anglo propaganda they learned in highschool and from youtube videos.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >What's funny is it's well documented that Russia and France had a lot more to do with the outbreak of war than Germany did

      This is literally false, but since "Germany caused WW1" was the main narrative until recently, contrarian teenagers like you will overcompensate in the opposite direction and declare that Germany dindu nuffin upon finding the slightiest evidence that maybe the Entente side shares some of the blame too.

      Literally anything you can say about Russia or France ("Wtf they supported some ally of theirs, the buttholes!!" "Wow they mobilized, what a bunch of c**ts!!") applies to Germany as well.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >*Serbs kill the heir to the Austrian empire*
        >Russians and French support this
        >Austria: If we go into Serbia do you have our back?
        >Germany: Yes

        >This is the sum total evidence for Germany "causing" the war

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Bosnian nutjob kills Austrian noble
          >Germany supports invading Serbia over this

          I bet you'd justify invading Afghanistan if a Saudi nutjob destroyed your towers

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >>This is the sum total evidence for Germany "causing" the war

          No, there is also the fact it declared war on Russia, France and Belgium, effectively turning an Austro-Serbian war into a world war

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    > Who was responsible for the most nonsensical war in the history of our civilization?

    Possession leads to conflict and war.
    I, uhhhh... don't care.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Serbia for assassinating the Austrian heir.
    Austria for starting the war.
    Germany for making it knto a world war.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Germany, they even admitted it in the Treaty of Versailles

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      this is such a moronic take
      >the loser gets all the blame
      shocking!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >person who threw the first punch gets the blame

        Sounds pretty rational and conventional to me

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >if you mobilise against us we will see no other option than to declare war
          >mobilises anyway
          >war declaration follows
          the russians knew exactly what they were getting into
          also according to your nuaced view of the one who declared war first is to blame for everything end of story, it's only logical you think WWII started when france and the uk declared war on germany?
          while you're at it also explain how the russians and the french putting all their troops near the german and AH border or a rogue state harbouring an assassin who just murdered one of your royals were not acts of war
          >Russia relied heavily on the French alliance, as Germany would face greater challenges in a two-front war compared to a conflict with Russia alone. French ambassador Maurice Paléologue harbored deep antipathy toward Germany and believed that when war broke out, France and Russia had to be staunch allies against Germany. His stance aligned with that of French President Raymond Poincaré. France pledged unconditional support to Russia in the unfolding crisis with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Historians debate whether Paléologue exceeded his instructions, but there is consensus that he failed to provide Paris with precise information, neglecting to warn that Russian mobilization could precipitate a world war.[14][15][16]
          simply doesn't matter this, germany bad, france and russia dindu nuffin, simple as. just ignore what happened before germany's war declarations because germans are lunatics who declare war for shit and giggles. why are you even on IQfy when it clearly doesn't interest you. go back to IQfy

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Me. Sorry guys it was me I'm really really old I fricked up at the time . I definitely will try my best not to start world war 3 but maybe I'm going to have to because I just want to die it sucks being this old I want this gay ass world to end,

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Ok let's take away the names of the countries to remove all preconceived notions and let's see who's at fault here

    A bear cub and a wolf pup are in a field. The bear cub bites the wolf pup. The wolf pup growls at the bear cub and crouches down ready to attack. Suddenly, the bear's mother comes charging at the wolf pup and the pup's wolf mother rushes in to defend her pup. Then a moronic frog who has absolutely no reasonable interest in this fight starts to aggressively approach the wolf, thinking now is its opportune time to strike, as it never liked the wolf anyway and wants to take her down a peg as revenge a fight they had years ago. The wolf turns around and responds to the frog's aggression, and the frog cowardly hides behind its tadpole as a shield. The wolf tells the tadpole to get out of the way, but the tadpole refuses, so the wolf picks it up with her jaws and tosses it out of the way. This angers a lion, who also doesn't like the wolf because he arrogantly thinks he's the most noble and powerful animal in the field and is afraid the wolf might become stronger than him some day, who joins in the fight against the wolf. A roach the bear liked to bully joins the fight on the wolf's side. A guinea pig who pretended to be on the wolf's side for years turns on her because he thinks he can beat up her pup and take some of her shit. 4 years later, a fat eagle from across a lake who was getting rich off the fighting selling its talons to the warring animals joins in the fight against the wolf who has become ragged and tired from being outnumbered and then takes all the credit for the wolf's defeat claiming he obviously tipped the scales against the wolf and the other animals couldn't have done it without him.

    Now in this hypothetical scenario who would you say is the most responsible for minor fight a bear cub and a wolf pup turning into an absolute shitshow?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Then a moronic frog who has absolutely no reasonable interest in this fight starts to aggressively approach the wolf, thinking now is its opportune time to strike, as it never liked the wolf anyway and wants to take her down a peg as revenge a fight they had years ago. The wolf turns around and responds to the frog's aggression, and the frog cowardly hides behind its tadpole as a shield. The wolf tells the tadpole to get out of the way, but the tadpole refuses, so the wolf picks it up with her jaws and tosses it out of the way

      Yeah, totally unbiased analogy there.
      France didnt attack Germany, Germany attacked France because their plans from years before the whole thing even started dictated that they had to defeat France before fighting Russia in order to avoid the risk of getting stuck in a two front war.

      Also, saying France "cowardly hid" behind Belgium is ridiculous.
      If anything, Germany are the ones who acted "cowardly" (if strategy = "cowardice") by going through Belgium in order to outflank the French army to avoid fighting it face to face on their shared border.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      fricking armchair historians, man

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The israelite in the hunting stand safely out of reach.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Austria had Germany's backing and thus they felt strong. What Germany should have done was to force them to either kill the conflict immediately, or do nothing, ever. The first option seems better.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine the profits.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Germany literally declares war on everyone
    yeah, it was pretty much Germany

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Germany is just terminally autistic and has no sense of playing politics for optics or plausible deniability like admitting the authenticity of the Zimmerman telegram. Russia and France mobilized on them first and "they wuz jus playin around, they wusnt gonna do nuffins until big bad Germany declared war on them for no reason at all!" is a bullshit propaganda narrative

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >mobilizing is an act of war
        You have a meme understanding of the situation.

        If the war was France alone on the short mountainous heavily fortified border along Elsaß-Lothringen, nothing would have happened except 10000s of Frenchmen machine gunned and turned into red mist. In defensive terms there was no need for Germany to march through Belgium or even declare war on France, their behavior was to risk it all in the delusory hope of marching on Paris as they did in 1870.

        In hindsight it would have been to Germany's advantage to stall France and Britain as long as possible and focus 90% on Russia, where in real life they made huge gains and with resources diverted to the eastern front could have progressed more, at least to St. Petersburg, perhaps to the Volga river system which would be a huge blow to the Russian economy and ability to wage war.

        Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg and Hitler all ended up shitfricking the German people, they were all traitors who committed the crime of placing their fantasies above reality and the fortunes of Deutschland, they remind me of /misc/, and you, which is a shame since I sympathise with German nationalism, but it seems there were inherent flaws in their philosophy which results in a belief in schizo conspiracy nonsense.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, Harry Hindsight, you've cracked the case, if only the German high command had foreknowledge of the subsequent outcome of their war plans in 1914 - like, for example, an anon posting about WW1 more than a century after it started - it would've ended very differently

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Focus on Russia

          No. I disagree
          If there is one thing Imperial Germany did right in ww1, it was the eastern front.
          History has taught us that sending your armies to chasing strategically irrelevant targets across thousands of kilometers being bogged down by skirmishes and attrition while the clock is ticking is the worst idea. The best way to defeat Russia is to make Russians fight each others, that's what Hitler did wrong. He should have set up independent states and armed the population, basically igniting a second civil war.
          Imperial Germany had the right strategy: Stay within proximity of your supply lines with a mobile defence and defeat the Russian army whenever it appears as its tactically inept, bleed them and let the state wear itself down. Again, even in ww2, by 1945 the Red Army had exhausted all its reserves and the USSR was facing a demographic collapse, the army had to be immediately demobilized after Japan surrendered to get the men back to civilian life before the economy crashed. Even here a winning strategy would have been a war of attrition where the wehrmacht wait for the Red Army to make the first offensive, but of course, they needed that oil so a defensive war wasnt feasible like it was in ww1.

          In theory, Imperial Germanys western strategy was still the best strategy, but maybe not a rush, and maybe not through Belgium, tho most historians seem to agree that Britain would have found another excuse but it would certainly have required a draft then since British people would have been less motivated to sign up, and Germanys international standing with the US would have improved.

          Ultimately, I dont think any strategy would have worked in 1914. The Germans simply had to take on too much responsibility against too many enemies as her allies didnt pull their weight in the war, and that can be traced back to Germanys failed foreign policy prior to the war.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          > Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg and Hitler all ended up shitfricking the German people, they were all traitors who committed the crime of placing their fantasies above reality and the fortunes of Deutschland, they remind me of [bogeyman]
          Take your med subscription, sir

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe they were preemptive? If a conflict is inevitable, the first to strike has the advantage.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The problem here was that the Russians never wanted a war and the mobilization was more supposed to be a deterrence. Poor judgement from the Russian generals, and once Nicolas realized what was about to happen, we have the famous Willy-Nicky telegram exchange where Nicolas is trying to immediately de-escalate, first by canceling the mobilization and then by calling for an emergency peace conference in Hague.

        I'm not blaming the Germans or the Russians, im simply emphasizing that ww1 is a very greyzone because one side believed it was going to be a isolated regional conflict and the other side believed war could be detered completely. Bad communicaiton and poor analysis of each others intentions, fueled by overconfidence in your own abilities les to war, and in fact, this is how most wars starts. WW2 mirrors this more than people realize, and even the Russian-Ukraine war has many similiarites.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    We just have to know who _wanted_ war with some territorial gains in mind. All kind of shit and provocations can be arranged if you want it happen.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >We just have to know who _wanted_ war with some territorial gains in mind.

      Everyone involved except Serbia

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I have read somewhere that one of the main cases was the railway that Germany wanted to build to the Ottoman Empire.
    The Brits were apparently scared that it will threaten their hegemony and pushed for the war.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      and I read somewhere that this guy, like all Kaiserboos, sucks dick for money.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Serbia started ww1

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      If some incel nutjob kills some Chinese politician during a diplomatic visit to the USA and China invades America as a result, who started the war?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If the american reaction was to gloat and boast about it instead of trying to uncover the terrorist organisation that the "incel nutjob" was a part of then clearly america.
        >Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Every major power was escalating the situation, forming secret treaties and increasing the sizes of their armies. The reason why Germany was blamed later didn't have anything to do with blame, but because already was a perceived enemy by the western powers, because of the strength of their army and because it had a central bank controlled by the state

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I'd say it was more to the fact that the victorious powers wanted to legalize the treaty. France was war-torn and the British empire was bankrupted in debt. Someone had to pay for the loans and reconstruction. All of Germanys allies had been terminated and replaced by new states. Should however be added that both Britain and USA dramatically changed their position on this during the interwar period.
      Germany is still held 'the most' accountable for turning it into a world war, but every historia has still embraced the nuanced perspective, and I believe this is what public education also emphasize when ww1 is being taught.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        yep, i'm a euro and i was taught in highschool that the situation was one big power keg waiting to go off untill it did, and that "WWI started when germany suddenly declared war on the entire world" narrative is a halfwit take and reality is a bit more complex than that
        if you hear someone claim that like

        >everyone shits on germany for their unconditional support for austria but why is france's unconditional support for russia always swept under the rug?

        Because Germany declared war on Russia, France and Belgium in a row.
        Meanwhile, France's half assed support to Russia didnt even make them react when Germany attacked Russia.

        https://i.imgur.com/OOJrq47.png

        >Germany never made sense to me. They were a powerhouse and they were only growing.

        They wanted a general war to assert their dominance over Europe before Russia could modernize
        They stated it explicitedly several times

        you know that person is either moronic or has an agenda

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Austria
    Most directly responsible. Most leaders at least did some efforts to avoid war, Austria refused any attempts to call for a diplomatic congress. They were set on fighting Serbia from the moment they got the German guarantee. They could stop the war from happening at any time by backing down against Serbia, and they even had a good excuse to do it when Serbia agreed to their demands. They didn't.

    >Germany
    Most indirectly responsibe. Kaiser Wilhelm basically created the conditions that led to the creation of the two great alliances. He gets some points for trying to push for a diplomatic solution for a bit at the very end, which was refused by Austria.

    >Hungary
    Responsible through incompetence. The Hungarian part of the empire sabotaged every attempt at military reform. The funny thing is that if Austria invaded the Serbs immediately in June/July, it probably would have only been a regional war, but the Austrian army was in such a poor state that they needed months to get battle-ready, by which time the situation escalated and the great powers got involved. Hungary was originally against invading Serbia at all because they were against annexing more Slavic land, and the Austrians wasted months getting their support.

    >Serbia
    Shouldn't have funded terrorists and be hostile to AH, but they did try to cool things down by agreeing to Austria's demands.

    >Russia
    Responsible for creating the situation that led to the war by their meddlings in the Balkans, and possibly had a hand in the assassination. To be fair, they did have a treaty with Seriba that they had to honor, especially after Serbia

    >France
    Honored it's treaty with Russia, which was of course opportunistic because they just wanted to get Alsace-Lorainne backs, still, mostly justifiable, and they had no part in the Balkan conflict.

    >Britain
    Mostly blameless, probably for the only time in their history,

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >France
      >Honored it's treaty with Russia

      Actually they didnt even do that lmao
      When Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August, France didn't even react.
      Much to Germany's dismay, who was then forced to declare war on France two days later in order to get them involved in their long planned "general war".

  24. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
  25. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It’s not a bad video but I can tell that he only read a single source on the subject. All of his arguments are clearly pulled from Christopher Clark’s “The Sleepwalkers” which puts a lot of emphasis on Russia’s aggressive moves in the Balkans in the lead-up to WWI.

    I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that he only read a single post but is posturing as an expert on the subject?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Austria annexed Bosnia in 1908, which pissed off Serbia and Russia. Also, knowing that the slavs are seething, prince Ferdinand decided to make a tour-de Bosnia, effectively laughing in the Serbs' faces, almost taunting them.
      Christopher Clark doesn't say this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Even Clark submits that the German blank cheque was the single most substantial escalation of the conflict

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Timestamp?

  26. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    In my country in history class, the teacher didn't blame anybody. And I drew no conclusion as who was to blame. Alliances were made and honoured, not an evil thing per se.
    Why are American history classes got to blame somebody for everything?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Alliances were made and honoured

      But that's the thing, they weren't.
      Did Russia declare war on Austria or Germany to honor its alliance with Serbia? Nope, Russia got involved when Germany declared war them.
      Did France declare war on Germany to honor its alliance with Russia? Nope, France got involved when Germany declared war on them.

      One side single-handedly turned a tense diplomatic crisis into a woprld war.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      your teacher may be an idiot. Someone got blamed after the war, and two major powers wanted to blame Germany for a reason. Wether those reason where legitimate or not, there's plenty of room for discusion about the reasons why the war broke out in the first place. By either economic factors, plain ol' imperialism or pure fanatic nationalism. The fact no one talked about that was partly the reason why they had a second world war in the first place.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It's not Germany who got blamed, it's "Germany and her allies".
        Aka the guys who made the first five war declarations

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          clearly they made an example of Germany, while the Austrian and Otoman empires where dismantled and in case of the last one, shared between France and Britain. Germany got its territory occupied and its economy destroyed. That was no peace after the war, but the complete destruction of a perceived enemy in Europe. AKA the non-liberal economic powers

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >clearly they made an example of Germany, while the Austrian and Otoman empires where dismantled

            i.e. Germany is the member of the losing side that received the least harsh punishment (despite being by far the most guilty out of the three)

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            it got its economy crushed, its central bank controlled by the state dissolved, and its natural resources drained by France. Austria and Turkey at least kept their ethnic territories

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Germany purpotedly crashed its economy though artificially caused hyperflation to avoid having to pay the reparations.
            Asa result, France and Belgium (who needed the reparations to rebuild, unlike Britain) ocuupied the Ruhr to repay itself with coal and iron.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            > Austria and Turkey at least kept their ethnic territories

            So did you Germany you fricking moron. The Versailles treaty even awarded territory to Germany through plebicites that had a majority German population, these were territories that had been taken by Poland prior to Versailles being signed.
            Holy shit you are uneducated on this topic. Literally parroting normie myths but I bet you're a stormhomosexual since they tend to have surface-level knowledge like normies but see everything from the opposite perspective and pretend like it's supposed to be mindblowing. Fricking moron. Keep making a fool out of yourself.
            The other anons are right, you're basically parroting the "harsh versailles" myth taught in basic education, when in reality and in perspective, Germany was the one who recieved the lowest sentence, especially with the increasing amnesities during the interwar period from Britain and USA while France and Poland were seething.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So many things wrong here.

            German economy wasnt destroyed. In fact the problem with Versailles was that German economy was intact while the French economy was destroyed. Germany exited the war before any allied soldier really entered the country. The occupation of the Rhineland was also voluntarily forfeit several years behind schedule.
            You're probably refering to the 1920 hyperinflation which was basically a planned inflation by the Germans to cheat their debt on France.
            Both the Young and Dawes plan formulated repayment so it aligned with German growth.
            France also recieved a heavy international backlash especially from USA and Britain for its occupation of the Ruhr.
            The occupation itself wasnt more exceptionally than the Prussian occupation of the industrial northern France in 1871 to force French war reparations. Germany and France traded many tit-for-tat between each others.

            Austria and Ottomans were also not "dismantled" by Britain and France, they both imploded before any treaty was signed, most of A-H internal states (czechs, croats, hungarians) seceded in the final months of the war while the country was still at war.

            Also, calling Germany non-liberal insinuates that the others were. Germany had probably the largest amount of unions movements because of its enormous industrialization which greatly contributed to the revolution for social and political reforms, again before any treaty had been signed.

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's pretty telling that the average normie thinks things went like
    >Austria declares war on Serbia
    >Russia declares war on Austria
    >Germany declares war on Russia
    >France declares war on Germany
    >Germany declares war on Belgium
    >Britain declares war on Germany
    ...when in reality it went like
    >Austria declares war on Serbia
    >Germany declares war on Russia
    >Germany declares war on France
    >Germany declares war on Belgium
    >Britain declares war on Germany

    The current dogma of equal guilt shared by both sides doesn't match the reality of what actually happened.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Only looking at who declared war first gives you a very misleading picture.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It shows who drew the first blood and turned a diplomatic crisis into a war.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but at that point there was no longer any room for diplomacy.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      it's also pretty telling midwits like you don't even bother reading a wikipedia page about the july crisis, the negotiations, and the tensions in the balkans and just assume it all started when germany declared war on everyone
      >he started it mommy!!
      it's like i'm back in kindergarten

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Top "think" (yes)
      Bottom "reality" (no)

  28. 1 week ago
    Radiochan

    Russia was by backing Serbia.

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    A conflict as huge, multifaceted, and consequential as WWI is impossible to pin on one party, it's everyone fault for being moronic and playing stupid political games. Imperialism made it inevitable, if it didn't happen in 1914 it would have happened eventually.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Imperialism had literally nothing to do with WW1 breaking out.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Austro-Hungarian imperialism in the Balkans and German imperial ambitions in the continent did.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Austro-Hungarian imperialism in the Balkans
          Annoying Russia aggressive pan-Slav and Serbia 1903 civil war

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Austro-Hungarian imperialism in the Balkans
          Only if you go back 30 years when Austria-Hungary first (de facto) annexed Bosnia.
          >German imperial ambitions in the continent
          Germany did not have imperial ambitions in Europe before the war.

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's the Montenegrins fault for constantly kicking ass and creating Serbia. Austria couldn't accept being buckbroken by some impoverished mountain tribes.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      NATO should kick out Montenegrins

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *