|
One century ago, ww1started. I'm curious to see what the media, reddit, and other websites will post.
BBC has started an anniversary program
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww1
I encourage you to read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
From the perspective of a Romanian, a country caught between Austro-Hungary from the west, the Ottoman Empire from the south, and invaded by various nomadic tribes from the northeast for centuries (tatars, mongols, visigoths etc), and later Russia, the outcome of ww1 was actually awesome. Here is what happened in a nutshell:
Germany invades, terrible damage, we flee from our capital. We were down only to one base, Moldova, with russians supporting us.
we sign an armistice with the germans giving us some breathing time. Hey, at least we didn't cease to exist, like Poland, for example ( my teacher was really proud of this for some reason...we still existed on the map as a sovereign country)
the russians have their revolution and withdraw from the war. Romanians go, "oh shit, we have to face the germans and hungarians alone now"
Get this: ONE DAY before the war ends, our king says oh, thst armistice we signed? Was never valid because our prime minister never signed it. Oh, btw, Germany, we're now at war again! We launch am assault on the hungarians and get Transylvania back.
Germany capitulated. We somehow emerged "winners"
We gained Transylvania back from Hungary (which we miraculously kept after ww2), otherwise today Hungary would be known for its vampires.
we gained half of Bukovina, which we lost to Russia after ww2
We gained other smaller territories that were taken.
For a couple of decades, Romania prospers, great economy, great Kingdom.
Compare this to the outcome of ww2:
Communism fucks up the country until 1989 (and today is still fucked up)
we lose half of Moldova, which is now its own country, and the southern tip, which is now part of ukraine
We lose Bucovina to the Russians (Now in ukraine)
we lose 2 counties to Bulgaria. (Here at least the population swapped)
But hey, at least we have vampires and we were never off the map,so we've got that going for us
  
|
for the usa our 100th anniversary will start in a couple years :O
|
On January 21 2014 08:55 Smurfett3 wrote:
for the usa our 100th anniversary will start in a couple years :O
What do u mean, can u elaborate?
|
Nvm, I got it, usa joined in 1917. Romania joined the war in 1916 but still it's 100 years since the whole thing started
|
back in the day when Men still knew how to fight with Honor
|
|
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
Utmost respect for the brave men that fought in that war.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Wars make me sad
i hope i kick the bucket before another big one happens
|
there IS a big one, it's called "the middle east," luckily our side fights it with flaming robot sky-death, mostly
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
i live in asia i don't count it as a big one yet
|
On January 21 2014 15:52 lichter wrote:
i live in asia i don't count it as a big one yet
If military tactics and weaponry were the same as it was in WW2, the death toll and destructon would be much, much higher over the last ~12 years of the middle east's problems.
|
On January 21 2014 13:41 teddyoojo wrote:
"we"
Same thought.
|
Correction: Poland didn't cease to exist in 1914; it was non-existent since 1795, when Third Partition split the grounds of our kingdom between Prussia, Austria and Russia. It was the outcome of WW1 that allowed Poland's rebirth since both Prussia and Russia - the major instigators of Partition - basically ceased to exists (Russia got consumed by a civil war and eventually turned into Soviet Union while Prussia turned into Weimar Republic). That's why 11 November 1918 is a double-special date for Polish people, as the end of the war marked the beginning of so-called "Second Polish Republic".
|
Nationalism is so stupid sometimes .
Your title has nothing to do (except first 5 paragraphs) with the actual post.
5/5 just to balance it out I would rate this 2/5 becose is like going offtopic in your own thread...
|
On January 21 2014 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:
back in the day when Men still knew how to fight with Honor
You're gonna have to explain that one to me.
|
On January 21 2014 23:10 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:
back in the day when Men still knew how to fight with Honor You're gonna have to explain that one to me.
Yeah, same thought here.
|
On January 21 2014 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:
back in the day when Men still knew how to fight with Honor
I would prefer to say "back in the day when Men were manlier and ready to die for their country".
|
Takes men of true moral character to blow over that mist of chlorine and mustard gas to the other trench.
|
Did they have the choice ?
Blah. It is pointless to discuss this anyway.
|
WWI the Great Capitalist Imperial War is somewhat infamous for the mismatch between the ideology of "chivalrous nobility" that was still lingering around in the imaginary of warfare and the realities of mechanized war
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-War-Modern-Memory/dp/0195133323
On January 22 2014 02:36 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:
back in the day when Men still knew how to fight with Honor I would prefer to say "back in the day when Men were manlier and ready to die for their country".
meh, "country" is just a thing they make up to get you to die for the ruling class
|
Well for many people it was reality.
Because you know Sam, when you believe something it becomes real. And while "country" doesn't really mean a lot nowadays because of globalization and stuff it had a real meaning back then and people were not ashamed of being American, German, English or French. They were proud.
And if they didn't believe it strong enough we would speak German nowadays instead of English (ok it is a bit more complicated than this but you get the idea).
|
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well
User was banned for this and the other 5,000 posts like it.
|
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well
Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking?
I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about.
|
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well
It is just that i'm able to understand people without trying to sell my little communist ideas.
Oh well whatever. Gl with the revolution. Like if the commie overlords are better than the capitalist pigs.
|
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
Then all your memories are lies. And you become a fucking goldfish.
|
On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about.
that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International
If you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur...
there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom.
and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause
|
On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about.
Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe?
If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution.
http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War
|
On January 22 2014 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_InternationalIf you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur... there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom. and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause
I'm sorry, you drank the kool-aid. There's nothing I can do for you anymore.
On January 22 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe? If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution. http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War
Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is often the correct one. A lot of alliances and the fact that everyone hated each other (which was the status quo for many centuries in Europe) let to Europe becoming the equivalent of a powder keg. The war itself was started by a "spark", the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The underlying tensions of the time include such things as militarism, nationalism and clashes caused by imperialistic doctrines.
I see no need for fiendish capitalistic ulterior motives to explain WWI; the above is really all that is necessary to get millions of people at each other's throats. Sure, there may have been secondary fiendish capitalistic motives for WWI, but they would have been just that, secondary.
I'm not going to bother with the podcast until I know that you, at least, aren't as insane as Sam. People with strongly held (but completely insane) beliefs will pass off unverified or poorly verified beliefs as fact, meaning I would have to dissect every single tiny thing to come out of the podcaster's mouth, which is a pain and something I don't feel like bothering with at all if he is one of those nauseatingly stupid communists.
|
um... it's an objective fact that this was the discourse of the time, regardless of what you THINK about it...
|
Sorry, didn't mean to double-post.
|
The podcast has nothing to do with communism. It's done by a guy with midwestern sensibilities.
Why do you think everyone was militaristic and colony-crazy?
|
On January 22 2014 05:51 IgnE wrote:
The podcast has nothing to do with communism. It's done by a guy with midwestern sensibilities.
Why do you think everyone was militaristic and colony-crazy?
Well that's nice.
Before actually educating myself on the topic, I'd guess that people were colony-crazy because of the limitless bounty of foreign lands and probably some economic downturn or slowdown of some sort. I'd guess that people were militaristic because of the pride involved in nationalism; the fear, hatred and dehumanization of other nations under nationalism, the fear of the power of industrial warfare, the pride in your own mastery of industrial warfare and some other factors.
Either way, those are just guesses. Onwards to learning!
|
Because the First World War was seminal catastrophe of the 20th century, there is a natural desire to ascribe some great portentous meaning behind it. After all, nothing but a complete metaphysical doctrine, declared its unblemished opacity, can be felt to be worthy of an event so rich in futility, so royal in sacrifice and so superfluous in heroism and every martial virtue known to thought and deed. In the lives of peoples, great messianic movements have often followed great national traumas, and the First World War was no exception, for its sheer gigantic nature paved the way for a new kind of adulating faith. The First World War killed perhaps 10 million people, and it gave birth to modern ideology.
It changed the way men think about and experience virtually everything. Its shadow stalks over almost every cultural narrative, every tl.net debate, every abstract thought the civilised world over. Such gigantic consequences must have had an equally gigantic motive, right?
I wonder if the proponents of these views realise how closely their proclivities come to the doctrine of intelligent design!
|
On January 22 2014 06:09 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Because the First World War was seminal catastrophe of the 20th century, there is a natural desire to ascribe some great portentous meaning behind it. After all, nothing but a complete metaphysical doctrine, declared its unblemished opacity, can be felt to be worthy of an event so rich in futility, so royal in sacrifice and so superfluous in heroism and every martial virtue known to thought and deed. In the lives of peoples, great messianic movements have often followed great national traumas, and the First World War was no exception, for its sheer gigantic nature paved the way for a new kind of adulating faith. The First World War killed perhaps 10 million people, and it gave birth to modern ideology.
It changed the way men think about and experience virtually everything. Its shadow stalks over almost every cultural narrative, every tl.net debate, every abstract thought the civilised world over. Such gigantic consequences must have had an equally gigantic motive, right?
I wonder if the proponents of these views realise how closely their proclivities come to the doctrine of intelligent design!
Your prolixity really got the better of you this post.
Who are these proponents and what do they say?
|
I'd guess that people were colony-crazy because of the limitless bounty of foreign lands and probably some economic downturn or slowdown of some sort.
This is why what is now known as the "Scramble for Africa" is more appropriately viewed as series of isolated events which appear to congeal together into a thematic whole. Two of the British Empire's great acquisitions in the late-19th century, for instance, the Sudan and the Boer Republics, had nothing to do with the expansionist intentions of the British government, and occurred in spite of them. Bismarck too, allowed German colonies to be established not because he wanted them, but because of the imperatives of domestic politics. The German colonial lobby which pressured the German government was dominated by adventurist dilettantes. One of the ironies of German history is the fact that most of the German colonies were acquired with the casual flick of the pen by the Europe-oriented Bismarck, whereas the era of Wilhelminian personal rule, often associated with Weltpolitik, gained relatively little territorially for the German Empire, and what little he gained was acquired at much greater political expense.
I'd guess that people were militaristic because of the pride involved in nationalism; the fear, hatred and dehumanization of other nations under nationalism
I don't think we can speak of "dehumanisation" until the war actually broke out, and propaganda began to seep in. One difference between the First and Second World Wars is that in 1914, the nations were relived that war broke out, whereas in 1939, no nation saw the outbreak of war as anything other than a catastrophe.
Prior to the First World War, there was a general consensus among civilised nations that war was in the life of nations what sport was in the life of an individual. There may be strain, exertion, generally suffering in the process of its execution, but it was also a necessity, intermittently exercised to maintain the health of a people. Nations which did not regularly challenge the moral and martial fortitude of its people, and abstained from occasionally calling them up to fill the rosters of duty and sacrifice, become corrupt and decadent.
The notion many classically-educated men held about history was a cyclical one: Luxury and ease in time made virile nations decadent and effete, at which point they would be overthrown by younger, more masculine, and more primitive races. That martial spirit would in their turn bring them victory, followed by luxury, ease, and finally, decadence. Thus in ancient times the Semites were overthrown by the Aryan Persians, who in turn were overthrown by the Greeks, who in their turn were overthrown by the Romans, who in their turn were overthrown by the Germanic tribes, the Merovingians, the Carolinians, etc.. The key transition being each successive empire's transformation from a military tribe into a cosmopolitan empire; along the way they gained in civilisation, but lost in courage and energy.
Who are these proponents and what do they say?
Anyone who begins with the sentence "World War 1 was about..." is already making an a-historical rationalisation about history. It may surprise most people to grasp the notion that most governments began the war in 1914 with only the faintest notions of what their war aims were. Before the ideological age, most people responded to the call of war as a personal test of loyalty and duty, rather than by a notion of the world they were fighting to create. That came into the war, alas, with Wilson, and has been the refrain of almost every great war fought ever since.
This does not mean that the soldiers who raced to their country's colours were thoughtless; they merely lived in a pre-ideological age, and they had no way of divining the mysteries which only time could unfold.
|
On January 22 2014 05:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_InternationalIf you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur... there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom. and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause I'm sorry, you drank the kool-aid. There's nothing I can do for you anymore. Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe? If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution. http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War Sure, there may have been secondary fiendish capitalistic motives for WWI, but they would have been just that, secondary. I'm not going to bother with the podcast until I know that you, at least, aren't as insane as Sam. People with strongly held (but completely insane) beliefs will pass off unverified or poorly verified beliefs as fact, meaning I would have to dissect every single tiny thing to come out of the podcaster's mouth, which is a pain and something I don't feel like bothering with at all if he is one of those nauseatingly stupid communists.
This simplistic understanding of the logic of capital is why you think sam is insane, all the while secretly fearing the topics he brings up because it might upset your comfortable worldview.
The serious contention is not that there is a cabal of capitalists who secretly plotted together to bring about a European war at the beginning of the 20th century. There were actually quite a few economists who thought that wars simply couldn't be fought anymore, because everyone recognized that they were too great a cost at the expense of business and trade. The serious contention is that the logic of capital drove the very forces that ended up creating the powderkeg of Europe.
|
Poland didn't cease to exist in 1914; it was non-existent since 1795, when Third Partition split the grounds of our kingdom between Prussia, Austria and Russia. It was the outcome of WW1 that allowed Poland's rebirth since both Prussia and Russia - the major instigators of Partition - basically ceased to exists (Russia got consumed by a civil war and eventually turned into Soviet Union while Prussia turned into Weimar Republic). That's why 11 November 1918 is a double-special date for Polish people, as the end of the war marked the beginning of so-called "Second Polish Republic"
Poland existed in three forms between 1795 and 1918: in the form of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw after 1807 created by Napoleon, the Kingdom of Poland from 1815 to 1831 in dynastic union with Russia, and another Kingdom of Poland between 1916 and 1918, under a German-supervised regency.
meh, "country" is just a thing they make up to get you to die for the ruling class
Although I don't agree with much of the BBC's 10 Myths about WW1 series, they were correct in pointing out that the casualties of the war fell disproportionately on the ruling classes of the Western countries. Proportionately, they volunteered and died in the highest numbers.
Remember Charles Masterman's eulogy to them in England after the War:
"In the retreat from Mons and the first battle of Ypres perished the flower of the British aristocracy. In the useless slaughter of the guards on the Somme, or the Rifle Brigade at Hedge Wood, half the great families of England, heirs of large estates and wealth, perished without a cry."
A lot of alliances and the fact that everyone hated each other (which was the status quo for many centuries in Europe) let to Europe becoming the equivalent of a powder keg
The powder keg metaphor referred to the Balkans, and not to Great Power rivalries in general. That an outbreak of hostilities between two Great Powers might ensue in a general European war had always been true in European politics. However, the instability of the Balkans between San Stefano and the Second Balkan War was a special quality of that age, which combined with the overlapping interests of the Great Powers, made it a uniquely dangerous corner of the world.
Re: OP, who said:
Germany invades, terrible damage, we flee from our capital. We were down only to one base, Moldova, with russians supporting us.
Your summary of Romania's participation in the war is very nice. Yet I feel you left something out, you know, concerning Romania's entry into the war.
There is an impish trick here, because "Germany invades" has somehow become a way to set the context to every narrative without requiring a context itself!
Gypsies steal, Jews commit usury, Germans invade.
|
On January 21 2014 15:52 lichter wrote:
i live in asia i don't count it as a big one yet
Central Africa has been in a near continuous state of war for a while. 5 million dead during the Congo Civil War for example....
|
Off topic but one of my favorite books is "All Quiet on the Western Front" which talks about the war from the German perspective
|
On January 22 2014 13:09 NeuroticPsychosis wrote:
Off topic but one of my favorite books is "All Quiet on the Western Front" which talks about the war from the German perspective
Same. Read it in French. Great book. Sheds light on the conditions of War, regardless of nation.
|
On January 22 2014 07:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2014 05:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_InternationalIf you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur... there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom. and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause I'm sorry, you drank the kool-aid. There's nothing I can do for you anymore. On January 22 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote:On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote:
on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe? If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution. http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War Sure, there may have been secondary fiendish capitalistic motives for WWI, but they would have been just that, secondary. I'm not going to bother with the podcast until I know that you, at least, aren't as insane as Sam. People with strongly held (but completely insane) beliefs will pass off unverified or poorly verified beliefs as fact, meaning I would have to dissect every single tiny thing to come out of the podcaster's mouth, which is a pain and something I don't feel like bothering with at all if he is one of those nauseatingly stupid communists. This simplistic understanding of the logic of capital is why you think sam is insane, all the while secretly fearing the topics he brings up because it might upset your comfortable worldview.The serious contention is not that there is a cabal of capitalists who secretly plotted together to bring about a European war at the beginning of the 20th century. There were actually quite a few economists who thought that wars simply couldn't be fought anymore, because everyone recognized that they were too great a cost at the expense of business and trade. The serious contention is that the logic of capital drove the very forces that ended up creating the powderkeg of Europe.
My "comfortable worldview." Hahahaha.
I believe the human race is largely short-sighted, hedonistic, idiotic and downright disgraceful. Even nauseating at times. I believe that we will fail completely and utterly at stopping global warming because we are such a comedic failure of an intelligent species. I believe that that will result in utter devastation to human society within the next century. I believe that the majority of problems western society faces can be traced directly to the idiocy and incompetence of the masses.
I also believe that many great acts are driven by selfishness. By far the most important thing we consider, consciously or not, when deciding to help another African nation with their civil war or put pressure on a nation to stop their nuclear program is, "How does all that crap affect me?" Me, me, me, me, me, me, me. That's the mantra. It just so happens that economic factors often have a lot to do with me, both because of the interconnected and delicate nature of economy and because money gets you almost everything in this world.
Talking about capitalistic factors as if they are the root of all evil or the primary cause for something is missing the point. Money is only the middle-man for material wealth; we'd obsess over what we have even if we had to barter for it. No, what we really love is me.
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me.
|
2/5 read. I find that its far better to get your point across in a concise and simplistic fashion as opposed to using big words.
|
To Daswollvieh and teddyoojo, who replied with "we" - I say "we" because that's what others do too: identify as a Romanian. I just happen to be born there and that makes me a Romanian, but I'm not a nationalist. I understand you might not identify with the people in your country, that's fine, but it's easier to say "we" even though I wasn't born when these events happened.
On January 22 2014 08:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Your summary of Romania's participation in the war is very nice. Yet I feel you left something out, you know, concerning Romania's entry into the war.
There is an impish trick here, because "Germany invades" has somehow become a way to set the context to every narrative without requiring a context itself!
Gypsies steal, Jews commit usury, Germans invade.
Right, I left out a lot the back story. The main reason we joined the war was because we wanted Transylvania back.
From wikipedia:
When the Entente Powers promised Romania large territories of eastern Hungary (Transylvania and Banat), which had a large Romanian population, in exchange for Romania's declaring war on the Central Powers, the Romanian government renounced its neutrality and, on 27 August 1916, the Romanian Army launched an attack against Austria-Hungary, with limited Russian support.
Transylvania is a touchy subject between Romania and Hungary. Again, I'm not a nationalist, but what they teach us in school is Transylvania is originally Romanian territory that was under Austro-Hungarian occupation. Sadly, territorial disputes are still cause of war today ("We were there first" - Palestine/Israel for example) but I agree with the person who said we are just peasants encouraged to be nationalist in order to fight for the upper class. We're just human after all. Except the Hungarians (just kidding, you guys are cool).
I'm surprised my blog written on my phone stirred this debate. People are even getting banned, wow. It started when I saw the centenary anniversary on BBC and remembered that WW1 is viewed as a success in Romania.
|
On January 21 2014 08:50 ggofthejungle wrote:
we sign an armistice with the germans giving us some breathing time. Hey, at least we didn't cease to exist, like Poland, for example ( my teacher was really proud of this for some reason...we still existed on the map as a sovereign country)
Polish people always rage when I bring this up. It ALWAYS works.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
Better not to exist than to sign anything with Germans.
|
Calling out MoltkeWarding!
Dude I'm a lurker and wannabe history buff and I must say I was blown away by your posts here and especially in that other Hitler blog.
Do you study history in college ?
Anyway, you should totally write a history blog!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
