World Wars Causes Debate

But you said yourself that in your scenarion Austria would be allied with South Germany. And you conviniently forget the Ottoman Empire. Sure, WW2 history is much better known, and the Ottomans didn't exist by then anymore. But still, the Ottomans went to war against Russia by themselves, and were actually allied with Germany and Austria in real life. Also not to forget, not that long before WW1 Britain and Russia went to war over Crimea.But sure, if your world looks better when everythi

WW1 was a war everyone wanted (partially due to the dismantling of Bismarck's complex systems of alliances). Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia (and looked for an excuse), Prussia thought war against Russia was inevitable (no idea if that's true or not) and that such a war couldn't be won by Prussia once Russia started to modernize (kind of true, as Prussia utterly defeated Russia in WW1 and Germany was utterly defeated by Russia in WW2) and thus wanted a war against Russia now.

A bigger obfuscation is the cause of WWII. We are given the history of WWI, geopolitical alliances, assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, harsh Treaty at Versailles, collapse of German currency, WWII continuation of WWI, failure of Chamberlain appeasement, German Soviet non-aggression pact. No mention of German genocide of African Herero and colony in South-West Africa ( Namibia ), Italian occupation and war against Ethiopia, and Russo-Japanese War. The Axis powers shared that they were late to t

Not really. People thought that countries were too interdependent to wage war, but they were wrong and that had nothing to do with the myriad of reasons for the war ( rivalries, historic and current, Russian development (which put Germany waging war on them on a timeline), Austria-Hungary falling apart and trying to compensate, the UK being skeptical of Germany, France wanting revenge, etc etc etc etc)

Yes but the point the parent made was that after WW1 they were not restricted and it lead to WW2 and after WW2 it lead to the EU. So its pretty clear what strategy was better.In fact, the Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge wanted exactly that, Germany had to be defeated and invaded. It was the only way to get lasting peace in Europe. And of course many in France like Foch wanted the same thing.

i am not sure why this comment is downvoted.Its a historical fact upon signing Treaty of Versailles a fuse for WW2 was lit.WW2 was matter of when and not if (well war in Europe that would have colonies involved dragging them into war making it world war)

Nobody wanted a world war, but lots of people wanted a war between Germany and Russia, which would drag France into it. They just assumed it could be over quickly and they would be the victors (and it came very close to being true for the Germans. Had the Miracle on the Marn not happened or had Russia mobilized slower the Germans might really have out flanked the French army).Hitler assumed he would be able to get away with taking Poland, as he had gotten away with taking pretty much anything

War would have been won if not for stab in the back. Same as Germany post-ww1 rise of Nazis.

Why was Germany not more prominent during WWII (but apparently during WWI)?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570...This was a common argument as to why WWI couldn't happen, countries were far too economically dependent, everyone would be ruined.Except it did happen, and everyone was ruined.