|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:13:43 GMT -5
Nope, I have not heard that, but with the stock market, you can place a photograph from the 1990s and it would be exactly the same as the 1920s.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19101989 on Jan 30, 2010 16:17:15 GMT -5
but hehe i see that history repeats itself is quite funny 'cause while studying International politics i noticed the same thing can be repeated twice. ;D
Germany somehow caused the eruption of the first world war and was defeated, and then it caused again the eruption of the second world war and then was defeated again. the financial crisis in 1929 is somehow repeated in the financial crisis of 2008....and so many
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:21:05 GMT -5
Yup ;D We never learn.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sinbad on Jan 30, 2010 16:22:37 GMT -5
Germany somehow caused the eruption of the first world war and was defeated, and then it caused again the eruption of the second world war and then was defeated again. *clicks tongue* I got to contradict there. Even though the Versailles Peace Treaty has a paragraph that claims Germany to be blamed for the outbreak of WWI and even though I agree that it did it´s share in making things explode in 1914, the two wars can not be compared in that way. We definitely started WWII, there is no way of denying that, it was clearly an act of aggression when Hitler invaded Poland, masking it as defence, but the processes that lead to WWI were more complex than that. Sure, the German emperor at the time was a hot tempered young jerk who did a great deal to add to things coming to this, but the whole European situation in that time was that of an imperialist era and multi facetted, complicated alliances and enmities that had the effect that Europe was a ticking time bomb. Therefore, yep, Germany was partly guilty for WWI, maybe even most guilty, but it´s definitely not the only country to be blamed for WWI. Different story with WWII. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:23:04 GMT -5
Hey, Sinbad. Do you have anything to say about this: "History repeats itself." ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Sinbad on Jan 30, 2010 16:25:24 GMT -5
Hey, Sinbad. Do you have anything to say about this: "History repeats itself." ;D I do.  There is a counter quote I have to offer, namely: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" |
|
|
|
Post by 19101989 on Jan 30, 2010 16:33:43 GMT -5
@sinbad: Ooookay sinbad
but again by studying the settlements of the post worldwar 1, I thought that somehow Germany shouldn't be bearing the whole responsibility 'cause the settlements was just too much over her. I mean just look at that. Germany will pay 132 Milliard golden franc*don't remember whether it was million or Milliard.* although she was already out of a destructive war which caused total destruction to even the Victorian countries. so how come she will pay the compensations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:33:56 GMT -5
Germany somehow caused the eruption of the first world war and was defeated, and then it caused again the eruption of the second world war and then was defeated again. *clicks tongue* I got to contradict there. Even though the Versailles Peace Treaty has a paragraph that claims Germany to be blamed for the outbreak of WWI and even though I agree that it did it´s share in making things explode in 1914, the two wars can not be compared in that way. We definitely started WWII, there is no way of denying that, it was clearly an act of aggression when Hitler invaded Poland, masking it as defence, but the processes that lead to WWI were more complex than that. Sure, the German emperor at the time was a hot tempered young jerk who did a great deal to add to things coming to this, but the whole European situation in that time was that of an imperialist era and multi facetted, complicated alliances and enmities that had the effect that Europe was a ticking time bomb. Therefore, yep, Germany was partly guilty for WWI, maybe even most guilty, but it´s definitely not the only country to be blamed for WWI. Different story with WWII. Actually, the way I learned, the prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was assassinated in Yugoslavia. Russian was not going to let the Austro-Hungarian Empire punish Yugoslavia over this. Germany was demanded to honor its alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and thus put pressure on Russia. France was allied to Russia, and thus put pressure on Germany. So Germany fought a war on two fronts. My question, why hasn't the Austro-Hungarian Empire given just as much credit for starting WWI? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:39:42 GMT -5
I mean just look at that. Germany will pay 132 Milliard golden franc*don't remember whether it was million or Milliard.* although she was already out of a destructive war which caused total destruction to even the Victorian countries. so how come she will pay the compensations. Easy, it is simply BS and is just a lousy way of saying, "We want you to suffer." Logically, could Germany pay that? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Sinbad on Jan 30, 2010 16:44:34 GMT -5
*agrees with Bryn and uses that to also answer Sarah´s question*
To be able to understand that one has to know more about Germany´s position at the time. The German Empire had become a mighty country in the years before WWI, so powerful that the balance of Europe was seriously threatened. Especially Prussia as the driving force behind the empire had lead to Germany becoming one of the most industrialised and military strongest countries of the world.
Adding to that, there was an old rivalry between Germany and France. When the German Empire had been established in 1871 it happened directly after Prussia had defeated France in a war. The German Empire was officially announced in Versailles, France, not anywhere in Germany. This, of course, was a humiliation to France.
After WWI there was one interest France had: try to harm Germany as much as possible so it couldn´t be a threat any more. Austria- Hungary was no threat. Of Germany and Austro-Hungary, the latter was definitely the wearker part. Whereas it had still been competing for dominance within the German struggle for unity up to the 1860s, it had retreated and weakened after a war with Prussia in the mid 60s. It was less industrialised, it was a multi-people state which additionally served as a weakening factor, in short: it was no threat. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was crumbling at that time, whereas the German Empire was on the rise. What few people know, there was hardly any damage done within the empire. Battles were fought not on German territory, but on French for example. The Battle of the Sommes for example was one of the most bloody battles in history to that point. Even today the grass grows greener there, because the soil still "benefits" from the corpses of tens of thousands...
So all in all, France as the direct neighbour of Germany was able to push its interests when the peace treaties were set up. The Peace treaty of Versailles therefore put German as the only one to be blamed for WWI, allowing France and other countries to take immense sums of money to make up for the war which especially served the purpose of weakining the German (weapon) industry. The French were particulary interested in the highly industrialised Ruhr area.
All in all it was an attempt to weaking Germany and, in its core, the ever militant Prussia, something whcih can even be traced further through hisory. When Germany was split into four parts after WWII this was to tear Prussia apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19101989 on Jan 30, 2010 16:44:47 GMT -5
The assassination of the prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was merely the straw which broke the back of the horse. it was the trigger of the eruption of the WWI. before it there were so many causes. like the Balkan area problem and the trials of Serbia to encourage Slavic people to get rid of the austro-hungrian empire's grasp and from the other side the increasing of the historical conflict between Germany and Russian over the ottoman empire which reaches it's highest point when the ottoman emperor appointed the German general Von sanders as a trainer for the Ottoman army. so the conflict between Russia and Germany transferred to another level . the direct conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sinbad on Jan 30, 2010 16:50:54 GMT -5
The assassination of the prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was merely the straw which broke the back of the horse. it was the trigger of the eruption of the WWI. before it there were so many causes. like the Balkan area problem and the trials of Serbia to encourage Slavic people to get rid of the austro-hungrian empire's grasp and from the other side the increasing of the historical conflict between Germany and Russian over the ottoman empire which reaches it's highest point when the ottoman emperor appointed the German general Von sanders as a trainer for the Ottoman army. so the conflict between Russia and Germany transferred to another level . the direct conflict. Exactly. *compliments you on your knowledge* If you have a look at the time before WWI, there were 8 pre-war crisis in that area, mosly around the Balkan, and the closer you get to 1914, the more often there are points of crisis. The bomb could have exploded earlier already, but it only did in 1914. At that point, it would have been difficult to prevent a war, it was a domino effect that was set into motion after the assassination. But if one country, lets say the German Empire, had denied to let itself be drawn into it, there would have been no war. At least, not at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by Bryn on Jan 30, 2010 16:52:54 GMT -5
Sinbad: I like the fact that i can actually understand what you are talking about because ive taken world history |
|
|
|
Post by 19101989 on Jan 30, 2010 16:53:39 GMT -5
@sarah: what is BS  @sinbad: aww thank you. I loved studying all of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 30, 2010 16:58:58 GMT -5
@sinbad and Bryn: Interesting.  And I like the grass "benefiting" part. ;D @sarah: what is BS Bull*s*hit |
|
;D
There is a counter quote I have to offer, namely: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" 
And I like the grass "benefiting" part. ;D