New answers tagged

3

When dealing with the "causes" of events there are no facts. You are in the world of interpretation and opinion. Characterizing the American entry into the war as the sole product of a Rothschild PR campaign is as ridiculous as it is unprovable. Your statement that the revolutions were having no effect on the war seems incorrect to me. To which "sources" ...


7

I think this article is a very sinister form of hatred propaganda. It is sinister because it makes a statement which is virtually impossible to debunk. Consider the fact that there are many million Jews around the world. Among these you will find some that are communists, other that are capitalists, and so on. That is no different from other ethnic groups. ...


1

You didn't say how long you have before the debate, but if you have the time read The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 Published in the year of the centennial of the outbreak of the war, it does an excellent job of using all the latest research on causes of the Great War, including whose fault it was and who started it. Spoilers: no, it wasn't ...


8

Russia made a unilateral peace deal with Germany in 1917 and left the war altogether. And doing so they broke their alliance with the Allies. It would have been strange to see the Allies invite Russia to the peace talk. Also they where in political turmoil and civil war was looming in....


4

Because the RSFR (I.e. Bolsheviks) weren't recognised as a legal government. In fact both sides of WW1 had been fighting against them. The Bolsheviks refused to pay the Russian Empire's debts or honour it's treaties, so really they had no leg to stand on in terms of being recognized as the successor of the Russian Empire, even if they had wanted to be. Since ...


2

I'm still not sure I understand the question, but I'm going to grope around in the dark in a hopeful manner. Let's look at some examples: OP suggests WWI and WWII - despite the opinion of my daughter's teacher, I perceive these as two episodes of the same conflict driven by underlying issues of colonialism and mercantilism, influenced by changes in the ...


3

This question appears to be asking about the idea that history operates in cycles. War follows peace follows war. Prosperity follows recession follows prosperity. And so on. Many, many people have made such suggestions. These sorts of theories ignore that history is about cause and effect. Wars don't cause peace. Peace doesn't cause wars... though they can ...


0

In large part, it was due to Japan's choice of allies in the two world wars. (In both cases, Japan was a "junior partner.") In World War I, Japan's main ally was Britain. That country preached (but didn't always practice), the concept of "fair play." Nevertheless, Japan accepted this "Western" concept in order to fit in, because Britain's allies ...


0

Spain was far away and unconcerned about the territorial-ethnic quagmire in the Balkans that provoked the war. Also there were no acute rivalries with other Western powers as France-Germany. No irredentism or disputed lands as future Price for the war effort. And last, but not least, the financial effort to equip an army for the Spanish-American war meant ...



Top 50 recent answers are included