100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Zonie63 -> 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 4:25:20 AM)

I thought this was an interesting piece.

quote:

German leaders, said Moritz Schuller, a columnist for the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, like to see 1914 as “the hour of the birth of the European Union” because it set the Continent on the long and tortured path of war that finally convinced its leaders that their common future lay in harmony and integration.

But “in most other European countries,” Mr. Schuller wrote, “the First World War remains what it has always been: a catastrophe that cost 20 million people their lives — and was started by the Germans.”

Such musings prompt a parallel debate: What point are history’s lessons if they are ignored and historical truth remains elusive?

The question is particularly acute at a time when sectarian strife is straining the political geography of the modern Middle East — laid down by the victors of World War I, Britain and France in particular, which set frontiers, carved spheres of influence and drew the parameters of what was to come.

A hundred years on, the region’s protagonists will doubtless remind European powers frequently enough that, no matter who started it, the war’s legacy lies in a conflicted arc from Jerusalem to Damascus and Baghdad as much as on the onetime battlefields of the Somme.


Did Germany start World War I? Or was it more of a shared guilt brought about by nationalists from multiple nations?

I'm also interested in the question above: What point are history’s lessons if they are ignored and historical truth remains elusive?

This is something that I often ask while looking at world events and seeing parallels to the past. Do we even bother to learn from history? Setting aside for a moment the vast numbers of people who don't even know the most basic facts of history, even those who seem more aware of history appear to draw the wrong conclusions, especially when pointing the finger of blame at whichever country might have started which conflict.

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on the matter, including those who may not even be all that interested in history.

Does World War I hold any relevance for people anymore? Do people really need to know who did it or how it all started? It's been 100 years since that conflict started. Does anyone even care?



Politesub53 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 4:47:00 AM)

You could superimpose the issues of the day back in 1914 to modern times quite easily. Military alliances, trade, expansionism, protectionism, arms sale.... Nothing much changes, no one learns. Same game with some different players in the squad.

Another example would be the alarmist quotes regards immigration, trotted out at repeated intervals over the years. The world didnt end then and wont end now.

Bush and Blair decided to "Liberate" the Iraqi people...... any seen the news 12 years later.....



eulero83 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 5:53:21 AM)

FR

First thing you should never listen to german journalists talking about Europe Union, they tend to not be objective.

WWI started because having colonized the whole world european nations begun to step each other feet, the spark had been the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, so Austria-Hungary was the first to declare war not Germany, but for many around europe there it maes not so much difference as german was the main language in austria. The bad guy was Gavrilo Princip.
Anyway WWI changed europe's geography drastically and some issues are probably going to last forever. You also have to consider that one difference between european nations and the usa is your nation was formed after a political ideal, ours formed by ethnical differences, around the borders where different etnicity share the same space there will always be some kind of repressed tension, WWI played the main role in defining those borders.

edit: this is the border between italy and austria on the italian side:
[image]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3506/7ie7.jpg[/image]



vincentML -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 11:26:22 AM)

quote:

Does World War I hold any relevance for people anymore? Do people really need to know who did it or how it all started? It's been 100 years since that conflict started. Does anyone even care?

Good post, Zonie.

I would think WW1 still resonates with Europeans and influences their mind set in the same manner that our Civil War is ever present in our discourse even though we may not wish to admit it. Oppression of former slaves continued into segregation and current vote manipulations.



Kana -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 11:50:50 AM)

quote:

the spark had been the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria


The irony here is that the Arch-Duke was so important that after his assassination, pretty much all of Europe went on vacation for a month.
(He was killed June 28th, July 28th the Austrians fired the first shots at the Serbs)

"The reaction among the Austrian common people was mild, almost indifferent. As historian Z.A.B. Zeman later wrote, "the event almost failed to make any impression whatsoever. On Sunday and Monday [June 28 and 29], the crowds in Vienna listened to music and drank wine, as if nothing had happened."

Essentially Europe yawned...except for the Serbs and Austrians. Elements w/i the Austrian Govt wanted a war bad, as did certain Serbian separatists. Once they got things going,all the hidden treaties started kicking in and next thing ya know,the world was at war.

Barbara Tuchman wrote a terrific book about the early stages called "The Guns of August." Well worth reading.
There's some terrific books about Austria on the eve of the war as well.

As for caring about a war 100 years old,I'm gonna disagree.
The eminent scholar Shelby Foote was once asked to be part of a study on Vietnam and the after effects that rippled through US Culture. He asked why, and was told "So we can understand how the war impacted our nation."
To which he replied,"Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the ramifications of the Civil War."



eulero83 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 2:30:52 PM)

You don't start a war in one day especially when attacking serbia means declaring war to russia and with it britain and france. There are regions where WWI is still an issue many where it is not, but I think we got over WWII with less problems.
By the way why should common people care about the assasination?



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 3:59:03 PM)

Actually the historical record is that Serbia started the war by aiding a Croatian separatist group to assassinate the Austrian heir to the throne, Arch Duke Ferdinand. Austria had every justification in striking back at Serbia (twin towers, anyone?). The rest was a chain reaction of overlapping mutual defense treaties dreamed up by the European powers who had no idea of the consequences of their actions, and no idea of how to stop it once it started.

Russia declared war on Austria to aid Serbia...
German declared war on Russia to aid Austria...
France declared war on Germany to aid Russia...
England declared war on Germany to aid France...

And the rest, as they say, is history. That bit about Germany starting the war was a lie written into the Versailles Treaty to pin the guilt on the hated Germans, even though Serbia was the real culprit. That lie was instrumental in the resentment which kindled the second world war some twenty years later. The simple fact is that the Great War started over 'some damn-fool thing in the Balkans', as was noted at the time. The best description of it was a spontaneous explosion of a group of shop-worn states which grew out of the collapse of the Roman empire. The great benefit of it was that it marked the beginning of the end of the Imperial Age.
[sm=fight.gif]



njlauren -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 4:03:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

the spark had been the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria


The irony here is that the Arch-Duke was so important that after his assassination, pretty much all of Europe went on vacation for a month.
(He was killed June 28th, July 28th the Austrians fired the first shots at the Serbs)

"The reaction among the Austrian common people was mild, almost indifferent. As historian Z.A.B. Zeman later wrote, "the event almost failed to make any impression whatsoever. On Sunday and Monday [June 28 and 29], the crowds in Vienna listened to music and drank wine, as if nothing had happened."

Essentially Europe yawned...except for the Serbs and Austrians. Elements w/i the Austrian Govt wanted a war bad, as did certain Serbian separatists. Once they got things going,all the hidden treaties started kicking in and next thing ya know,the world was at war.

Barbara Tuchman wrote a terrific book about the early stages called "The Guns of August." Well worth reading.
There's some terrific books about Austria on the eve of the war as well.

As for caring about a war 100 years old,I'm gonna disagree.
The eminent scholar Shelby Foote was once asked to be part of a study on Vietnam and the after effects that rippled through US Culture. He asked why, and was told "So we can understand how the war impacted our nation."
To which he replied,"Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the ramifications of the Civil War."




I agree entirely with you about the "Guns of August", there was a snotty recent book about WWI by some academic historian who took great delight in 'skewering' Tuchman's facts (what a lot of it was is if she said it happened at 10 at night, it happened at 9:30, no kidding). The thing about WWI that makes it worth learning is the sequence that led to it, how seemingly small things cascaded into the mess that was WWI.....

As far as the Germans being guilty, you have to keep in mind that Germany was planning to invade France many decades before WWI actually started, little thing known as the Schlieffen plan (where Germany was going to do as it did, an end run around France through Belgium), so it wasn't like Germany was reluctant, and they had a massive military built up to do it. One of the ironies, of course, is that France had that plan, they knew it, and their idiot military basically said "fine, let them go through Belgium, we'll march through Alsace with Elan and invade Germany (didn't work so well)...the stupidity was monumental on all sides. The Germans figured the war would go quickly, and they only had several months of gunpowder and other munitions (it also goes to show you how fucking stupid, despite claims to the contrary, Germans were...if it weren't for a chemist by the name of Fritz Haber, who had figured out how to fix nitrogen out of the atmosphere (in his case, to make fertilizer), Germany would have been out of WWI by October of 1914, literally would have run out of munitions.....and yeah, Haber was Jewish....). The British thought they were fighting a war of attrition, only Hague couldn't figure out they were losing more than the Germans..the alliances that led to protecting Serbia, who like today no one gives a crap about, was even more idiocy......

I highly recommend not only the Guns of August, but the Proud Tower by Tuchman, the Proud Tower even more so says what happened in that period of 1890-1914, that led to the mess that was WWI.....

And yes, sometimes reading history can change the future course of things. The Guns of August came out in 1962, and Kennedy had just read it before the Cuban missile crisis....and he said that one of the reasons he went with the blockade, that only McNamara championed (even his own brother was a hawk), was because he said WWI was a gigantic mistake, and he didn't want hundreds of millions dead over a stupid mistake...turns out he was right about the blockade, based on what we have from the other side now.

Shelby Foote was no idiot, he knew that reporting the history of a war in the middle of it is futile, cause even years later it doesn't work. Tuchman tried to write about Vietnam in her "March to Folly", and it is the one piece of her writing that fell flat for me, she was too close to it, and the work failed because of that I think.....



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 10:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
As far as the Germans being guilty, you have to keep in mind that Germany was planning to invade France many decades before WWI actually started, little thing known as the Schlieffen plan (where Germany was going to do as it did, an end run around France through Belgium), so it wasn't like Germany was reluctant, and they had a massive military built up to do it.

That was simply a standing war plan like every country made and makes today. One of the primary jobs of any Military Staff is to think the unthinkable, since not having a plan in place puts the defender in a world of hurt when the fighting starts. Look at how ill prepared the USA was for most of its wars - 1812, the Civil War, WW 1, WW 2 - we basically had to put everything on hold for a year while we mobilized first. There is nothing sinister about the Schlieffen Plan. I don't doubt the Pentagon has files on tap to attack or invade every country in the world simply on the off chance.
[sm=couch.gif]



njlauren -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/9/2014 11:38:29 PM)

The Schlieffen plan was not a defensive plan in case Germany was attacked, among other things, going through Belgium, who likely would be neutral, was not a defensive plan. The other thing is that Kaiser Wilhelm was spoiling for a fight. he wanted similar success to that which his predecessor as Kaiser had in the Franco-Prussian war. There was nothing defensive about what they did, and Germany invading france was an offensive act, it did not protect Austria, it was going after an old rival. Military's do routinely make up war plans and scenarios, but the reality of the schlieffen plan was that they were looking for an excuse to use it, had since the late 19th century.



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 6:35:08 AM)

With respect, NJ, I am a life-long historian. Germany went to war to aid Austria. They only attacked France after they started the larger war by declaring against Germany. True, France and Germany were old adversaries, but believe it or not, the French started that when Napoleon the Third (one third the man his uncle was) got all rignteous about the newly consolidated Germany and decided it was unacceptable to French 'honor'. The Franco-Prussian military disaster which followed brought down N3's try at a new Empire. As for the Schlieffen Plan, that followed the cardinal principle that 'the best defense is a good offense'. France was reputed to have the largest and best army in Europe at the time, and Germany's historical problem is having to fight wars on two fronts. A lightning war to knock out France was essential to clear Germany's back so they could tackle the larger problem of Russia. It almost worked. Sad to say, Holland and Belgium (and Luxumburg) were in the way. Their problem essentially was that the value system of the time didn't care about 'right' or 'decency' or 'humanity'. France declared war on Germany, and Germany defended itself - and they got caught in the crossfire. Sad, but that's how they rolled back then.
[sm=duel.gif]



vincentML -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 12:44:48 PM)

quote:

Essentially Europe yawned...except for the Serbs and Austrians. Elements w/i the Austrian Govt wanted a war bad, as did certain Serbian separatists. Once they got things going,all the hidden treaties started kicking in and next thing ya know,the world was at war.

Isn't that the way all wars seem to start?

Great post, Kana [:D]



MiloSnowe -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 4:23:52 PM)

In reply to the original post

History lessons are pointless, we have to make our own mistakes. We don't listen, we don't learn.

In regards to wars and who started what?
The greed of men trying to control resources.

War is a costly racket and is supported by men of means because it gives the greatest opportunity to increase personal wealth.
The Iraq war made me focus.
America bought bombs paid for by American taxes
America dropped the bombs on Iraqi infrastructure
Iraq paid for new infrastructure using oil profits
American companies rebuilt the infrastructure
America restocked the bombs paid for by American taxes

So the American people lost their taxes
The Iraqi people lost their lives
The American oil, construction and arms manufactures made a huge profit.



njlauren -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 4:40:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

With respect, NJ, I am a life-long historian. Germany went to war to aid Austria. They only attacked France after they started the larger war by declaring against Germany. True, France and Germany were old adversaries, but believe it or not, the French started that when Napoleon the Third (one third the man his uncle was) got all rignteous about the newly consolidated Germany and decided it was unacceptable to French 'honor'. The Franco-Prussian military disaster which followed brought down N3's try at a new Empire. As for the Schlieffen Plan, that followed the cardinal principle that 'the best defense is a good offense'. France was reputed to have the largest and best army in Europe at the time, and Germany's historical problem is having to fight wars on two fronts. A lightning war to knock out France was essential to clear Germany's back so they could tackle the larger problem of Russia. It almost worked. Sad to say, Holland and Belgium (and Luxumburg) were in the way. Their problem essentially was that the value system of the time didn't care about 'right' or 'decency' or 'humanity'. France declared war on Germany, and Germany defended itself - and they got caught in the crossfire. Sad, but that's how they rolled back then.
[sm=duel.gif]

What you are leaving out is the nature of Kaiserite Germany, which William Manchester in his book on the arms of Krupp described perfectly. Basically after the Franco Prussian war (which btw was what spurred unification, which happened in 1871, after the war had been won. The other principalities after the Prussian Victory, seeing their success, decided to Rally around Prussia. The war started because Napolean III was angry about some arranged marriage that bypassed his house and married the girl off to someone in the German line, or some such silliness). After unification and the resounding victory over France (which everyone expected France to beat Germany), German culture was dominated by the Prussian mentality, and talk of empire and such was ripe, it was when Germany was expanding as a colonial power and when there was a aura of invincibility. This wasn't exactly Germany fighting for its survival, it could very well have stayed out over the squabble with Serbia, which quite frankly most people didn't exactly get excited about but it was a Casus Beli, an excuse, for another grand adventure.

With WWI there is a lot of blame to go around, and no one came out smelling well, it was a war fought in stupidity, where a generation of young men was wiped out for 1000 yards on a battlefield, and if the war itself was stupidity, the aftermath was even moreso, the decision not to occupy Germany and then the reparations were the direct cause of the Nazi horror.



Zonie63 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 4:46:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

First thing you should never listen to german journalists talking about Europe Union, they tend to not be objective.


Maybe so, although I'd like to think they're more objective now than they were back in 1914 or 1939. [;)]

quote:


WWI started because having colonized the whole world european nations begun to step each other feet, the spark had been the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, so Austria-Hungary was the first to declare war not Germany, but for many around europe there it maes not so much difference as german was the main language in austria. The bad guy was Gavrilo Princip.


This is true. However, the situation in the Balkans was left a mess by the fading Ottoman Empire, which left a wild card in the back end of Europe. The rise of nationalism throughout Europe most definitely took hold in Serbia, which is where guys like Gavrilo Princip came into the picture. Germany also fervently embraced nationalism, and Russia's imperial government was dominated by ardent Slavophiles, who felt a strong affinity towards other Slavic nationalities (as well as Orthodox nations like Serbia).

So, Russia began a mobilization against Austria, which triggered Germany's declaration of war on Russia. Russia had an alliance with France, which France sought out earlier after their defeat to the Germans in 1871. Britain and France also became closer due to shared concerns over the burgeoning powerhouse in the unified German state. They had genuine concerns over the security of their nations and empires, since Germany clearly showed they had the wherewithal and the will to threaten them. German nationalism was viewed as particularly malignant, and their growing naval power was of particular concern to the British. Austria-Hungary could not have threatened Britain and France that way, but Germany could, and perhaps that's why they have been viewed as the main "bad guys" in the war.

I don't think it's correct to say that Germany started the war, although one could say that they may have been responsible for its escalation into a world war. The Kaiser was a bit nutty.




njlauren -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/10/2014 4:47:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MiloSnowe

In reply to the original post

History lessons are pointless, we have to make our own mistakes. We don't listen, we don't learn.

In regards to wars and who started what?
The greed of men trying to control resources.

War is a costly racket and is supported by men of means because it gives the greatest opportunity to increase personal wealth.
The Iraq war made me focus.
America bought bombs paid for by American taxes
America dropped the bombs on Iraqi infrastructure
Iraq paid for new infrastructure using oil profits
American companies rebuilt the infrastructure
America restocked the bombs paid for by American taxes

So the American people lost their taxes
The Iraqi people lost their lives
The American oil, construction and arms manufactures made a huge profit.

The whole idea of war being fought for profit is a problematic one, while there is no doubt that what we call the military industrial complex has had tremendous influence on wars being fought, it also as a root cause is too simplistic. Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons, fear, dreams of empire, power, the whole realm of human experience comes into play. It wouldn't surprise me if Dick Cheney pushed the Iraq war cause of all his Haliburton stock, for example, and I am sure there were policy makers and such who weren't exactly displeased by the money flowing into their districts...but in most cases wars are fought over human passion and frailty.



eulero83 -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/11/2014 1:08:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

First thing you should never listen to german journalists talking about Europe Union, they tend to not be objective.


Maybe so, although I'd like to think they're more objective now than they were back in 1914 or 1939. [;)]



it's just that somehow germany seems the only one nation not affected by the rules of euro (I mean the currency), if not favoured, so in many political tv shows there is a german journalist that defends them, sometimes with very questionable arguments.

Not only in balkans also on the border with Italy there were irredentist movements, also the movement for irish indipendency was part of that time even if it was not directly involved in the beginning of the war but had a part in it. I don't know how in Alsace they felt, but ethnical issues are alive even nowdays.



Phydeaux -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/11/2014 1:35:11 AM)

[/quote]
but in most cases wars are fought over human passion and frailty.
[/quote]


As opposed to national interest, greed, or real politic concerns?




MiloSnowe -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/11/2014 3:18:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

The whole idea of war being fought for profit is a problematic one, while there is no doubt that what we call the military industrial complex has had tremendous influence on wars being fought, it also as a root cause is too simplistic...

...but in most cases wars are fought over human passion and frailty.


I don't think what I said is too simplistic in fact I can make it even more simplistic, reduce it to its simplest form.

You and me are survivors. We can follow our gene pool back to the beginning of time. Our ancestors have never won any Darwin awards, have always been able to secure a mate to pass on our DNA to the next generation. On occasion we have had to make tough decisions "Me or you" and it has always been "me" and we have let others perish, used then, crawled over them as they died so that we would survive. Harsh? But true.

We are animals. Don't let all the wonderful distractions that surround us in modern society convince you otherwise. Like the rutting stags in the autumn (Fall) our primary purpose is to reproduce and we strive to secure as many resources as we can to give our progeny the best possible chance to survive. Subconscious as we may be to this it is the truth and if you have ever loved your child, protected them from danger, thought that "women and children first" is the moral right then you have aligned yourself to this subconscious desire to survive. Yes, I do all of these.

War gets you the most return on your investment. You kill another you inherit all their resources. What percentage profit does killing and stealing another's resources represent? What other business model can you name with such a return? Resources equals power and the more powerful you are the better chance you have of your gene pool surviving. If you are not prepared to engage in war then there will be someone else who will, who will attack you and look at your stance as weakness. If you are not prepared to go to war you will always be less powerful than others.

Is this too much? Are there really people out there who think like this? History is littered with them. People who have risen to the top of their organisation and look at the ones below them like animals in the fields. Beasts of burden or crops to be harvested. To get to the top of an organisation one of the usual prerequisites is a lack of empathy, the ability to make "tough decisions" to be able to use others, to take advantage of the weak, to manipulate and control, to totally focus on their aims, totally out of balance with life. They are rewarded when they show these skills! They are our leaders!
The reason we can't see this is because we are not able to view the world from their point of view and it is purposely hidden from us whilst we are a "Good Sport" but remember "Rules are for the little people" and if your bank is too big to prosecute you pay a fine of approximately a months profit and no one goes to jail.

I can give you a list of wars/covert military actions that have overthrown governments mostly started by the west.
What was the point of the war in Iraq? Who has profited from it? The sadness that I can see breaks my heart and the majority are kept in the dark like children who still believe in Father Christmas, conned by the people in control.

"wars are fought over human passion and frailty" I would change the words to greed and insecurity and agree with you wholeheartedly.



HipPoindexter -> RE: 100 Years After the Great War, the Bad Guy Is Still Elusive (1/11/2014 3:33:30 PM)

History doesn't teach lessons. Its only function is as propaganda to be manipulated by competing interests in the present.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I thought this was an interesting piece.

quote:

German leaders, said Moritz Schuller, a columnist for the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, like to see 1914 as “the hour of the birth of the European Union” because it set the Continent on the long and tortured path of war that finally convinced its leaders that their common future lay in harmony and integration.

But “in most other European countries,” Mr. Schuller wrote, “the First World War remains what it has always been: a catastrophe that cost 20 million people their lives — and was started by the Germans.”

Such musings prompt a parallel debate: What point are history’s lessons if they are ignored and historical truth remains elusive?

The question is particularly acute at a time when sectarian strife is straining the political geography of the modern Middle East — laid down by the victors of World War I, Britain and France in particular, which set frontiers, carved spheres of influence and drew the parameters of what was to come.

A hundred years on, the region’s protagonists will doubtless remind European powers frequently enough that, no matter who started it, the war’s legacy lies in a conflicted arc from Jerusalem to Damascus and Baghdad as much as on the onetime battlefields of the Somme.


Did Germany start World War I? Or was it more of a shared guilt brought about by nationalists from multiple nations?

I'm also interested in the question above: What point are history’s lessons if they are ignored and historical truth remains elusive?

This is something that I often ask while looking at world events and seeing parallels to the past. Do we even bother to learn from history? Setting aside for a moment the vast numbers of people who don't even know the most basic facts of history, even those who seem more aware of history appear to draw the wrong conclusions, especially when pointing the finger of blame at whichever country might have started which conflict.

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on the matter, including those who may not even be all that interested in history.

Does World War I hold any relevance for people anymore? Do people really need to know who did it or how it all started? It's been 100 years since that conflict started. Does anyone even care?





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02