- This topic has 9 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
How about the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and the other banking robber barons who financed both sides of the war? Woodrow Wilson even admitted as much.Oh I asked that a person be provided from the list I posted. These worthies were not on the list.Robber Barons? No No--Capitalists!
YES YES--I read all this--I was hoping that someone had peered through the keyhole and was able to seea face and thereby get a specific name of the man who was most responsible for letting an assassination in an obscure part of the Balkans grow into the greatest conflict of the century. Apparently my hopes have been dashed so i will throw my name into the next midden heap I pass here in the hinterlands.
How about the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, and the other banking robber barons who financed both sides of the war? Woodrow Wilson even admitted as much.
You are not serious are you? I am amused to hear you sound like you take anything Wilson had to say seriously. As it is, WWI was financed by the European powers largely from their reserves, at least until rather late in the war. It would not be until WWII that the US became the lender to the world. Don't forget that the Europeans also built most of their own armaments and many for the US too. That's why Dough-boys wore British helmets and used french artillery and tanks. We could not make them.
The Allied powers owed big bucks to the US by November of 1919. They had liquidated their assetsand were borrowing from every bank they could find. Our plants were filled with orders for steel andother essential war war material. My grandmother related that my uncles, working at Bethlehem steel in about 1916, used to wear silk shirts to work as a lark. They were making so much money that theyhardly had time to spend it. One of the reasons Wilson took us to war was because the financiers lethim know that a German victory would seriously jeopardize their credits which they had extended to the Allies. Wilson listened.
I don't think the original premise–the men instead of nations always start wars–is correct. WWI seems to disprove this theory. (Although it might be correct to say WWI resulted in part from the collective failure of European statesmen to resolve the problems of the era.) I don't think any one man was responsible for WWI. Instead WWI resulted from problems with and among nations that destabilized Europe. (The rise of Germany coupled with the desire of England and France to restrict Germany's ability to have colonial markets. The end of the balance of power established by the 1815 Treaty of Vienna. Entangling alliances. The rise of nationalism and militarism. The decline of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The desire of the Balkans for autonomy/independence. Etc.)
Daniel if you want to get an idea of why the war started there are several recent works that explore the wars genesis. Needless to say, the jury is still out and probably no one answer or reason will ever gain consensus. The cause or causes of WWI are so complex that agreement is probably impossible because their were so many interacting factors.To get acquainted with current thinking I would recommend the following books as a start.Miller, Steven. Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World WarHamilton, Richard & Herwig, Holger. Decisions for War: 1914-1917Hermann, David. The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World WarThese books are just a start, the literature on war origination is extensive and growing all the time.
The rise of Germany coupled with the desire of England and France to restrict Germany's ability to have colonial markets.
I would say this was the least of the reasons. Germany's colonialism was thriving, yet minor. England more or less (talk about specific wording!! 😮 ) supported it. Bismarck nor his successor Caprivi were expansionist.Here's Germany's colonies. just prior to WWI
In no particular order of blame:1. Dragutin Dimetrievich leader of the Serbian Black Hand -- Princep was merely one of his tools.2.French desire for revenge against Germany, building since defeats from Franco Prussian War.3.Russian meddling in the Balkans and assuring Serbs of their aid even though one of their diplomats referred to south Slavs as "Christianized Trurks with funny sounding names."4. Belief by some that war vs. Serbia could be kept localized despite Bismarck's caveat: "Some damn foolish thing in the Balkans may cause the next great European War."5. No Nobel Prize winner T.R. as U.S. President to mediate with all his prestige a prevention of war.6. Homer Lea's Book, Day of the Saxon pub. 1912 that predicted inevitable war between Germany and the British Empire. Also see Lea's 1908 prescient Valor of Ignorance that predicted war between Japan and the USA. 7. British fear of the German naval buildup.8. German fear of a two front war leading to preemptive ultimatums certain to be rejected.9. Too long a period of general peace while glories of war extolled -- "home by Christmas" mentality.Let the biases select #1 from above and others named on this thread.
