Hurr durr lets not get involved with the austrian-slavic war...

By WW2 I meant WW1 of course.

I'm pretty sure it's pretty idiotic to say it was an Austrian war agaibst Slavs and not specifically against those two countries. My ancestors were Slavs and fought for the Kaiser so shove it.

Because under pressure of diplomatic and Christian duty to Serbia, because he was under pressure of his foreign creditors, because russian fleet and capital nedded the control over Balcan region, which was shared by Austria and the rotting Ottoman Empire.

Mobilisation is very expensive action. So Nicolas II was sure about declaration of war by Central Powers and help of Allies. His further actions were also not bad - without big wins or great territorial expansion, but with steadily defense and relatively small losses.

>Christian duty to Serbia
Spooky
>he was under pressure of his foreign creditors
I don't understand how embroiling Russia in a foreign conflict would satisfy his nation's creditors.
>because russian fleet and capital nedded the control over Balcan region
Servia is completely land-locked

Serbia is an ally and the aggression against Serbia gives Romanovs a Casus Belli
>satisfy
Look: Europe has a couple of major industrial countries competing over colonies and markets - England, France and Germany. There are also few countries which are not as industrialised, yet they participate in the race: Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungaria and Russia. Both Ottomans and Russians are heavily credited.
The tension between England, France and Germany is growing, since Germany couldn't get more colonies than couple of shitstates in Africa and China.

As the war goes, the countries spend more cash and take more credits. After the end of the war, the winner takes lands and riches/markets from a looser, while the looser has to pay them all and (like Germany) also gets some investments in it. So the cash is flowing. The banks are getting richer and the markets are divided once again, but in different shares.
Nobody thought that Austria, Russia and Ottomans would fall apart

>Serbia is an ally
Russia had no treaty obligations with Servia. Your essentially saying that Russia deliberately plunged Europe into war for plunder.

War was started by German.
>couple of shitstates in Africa and China
>China
Bingo. It was real reason of war, because most of Chinese land were tend to be absorbed by Russia, Britain and France.

Isn't that why the most of war ls are waged? Everyone wants a share of surplus product.
youtu.be/x66TYd9nAMI
And, if I'm not mistaken, that was the general view of Marxist historians in USSR - WWI would have given nothing to people but the ruling class would get huge profits.

Wait back up buddy explain your reasoning here.

You just outright stated that Russia chose to mobilize so that they could enjoy spoils of war, but you claim that Germany started the war? Germany didn't mobilize until AFTER Russia did, in fact their decision to mobilize at all hinged on Russia's own mobilization, so how does that work?

Germans had opportunity to mobilize army and wait, but they announced war. So formal initiator is Germany.
Russia and Britain had reasons to fight too.

Hey, you're forgetting about the main question: who were the bankers?
They were french, germans, belgians, english and american. The majority of Russian banks were in fact the branches of french and german banks such as Deutsche Bank itself

>to mobilize army and wait
Except they didn't because their carefully laid plans that had been drawn up over the last 3 decades for a hypothetical war against France & Russia DEPENDED on knocking out France before Russia was fully mobilized. So once Russia started mobilizing it pushed Germany past the point of no return.

Saying "oh they coulda just waited" only demonstrates your profound ignorance for the realities of the moment.

OK, I'll bite. What did Martin Luther do to destroy Europe?

you canne be serious lad