What was the fucking point?

What was the fucking point?

stopping the WWI nazis

Family quarrel.

test out all the crazy new weapons and shit.

To decide if the post modern world would be dominated by Autocratic or Democratic perspectives, why do you think democracy is universally seen as good with everyone seeing the world in terms of "progress". Same with WWII and the Cold War but with the ideological perspectives of Liberalism, Fascism, and Communism. the 20th century is literally the culmination of Modernity.

I like to think WWI, WWII, and the Cold War as one big conflict between the three key components of the French and Industrial Revolutions.
>Pre WW1
French Revolution is founded on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity with these core concepts gradually manifesting over the 19th century to become Liberalism (due to rise in capitalism and Anglo's principles being very freedom orientated along with Frances democratic linage), Communism (Industrial revolution leads to a new abused working class in direct conflict with capitalists and desire more wealth), and Fascism (Napoleons Nationalism and revolutions of the 19th century solidify the notion of ones national identity and solidarity along with imperialism and racial hierarchies).
>WWI
Conflict to see if autocratic monarchies (Who don't represent Fraternities principles of order but rather stability and limited choice in contrast to democracy, this comes into play later) still have a place in the waning stages of the modern world against democracies.
(tb cont.)

(cont.)
>Inter War Period
Democratic choice leads to manifestations of ideological principles as world now has Wiemar Germany become Fascist (Or Nazism if you want to get technical but Nazism is a strand of Fascism) representing Order/Fraternity, Bolshevik revolution in Russia representing Equality, and Of course the western Liberal states representing Freedom. In a way one could argue that Fascism and Communism (though sworn enemies of each other due to Fascism institutionalized inequality) are basically antithesis of Liberalism born out of its failings. Communism comes out of Liberalism's poor treatment of workers in the industrial revolution, whilst Fascism rises out of the inter war periods economic failings. (Oddly enough in principle Fascism is the opposite to Liberalism socially as liberalism is founded on individuality whilst Fascism rejects all forms of individuality, and Communism is opposite to Liberalism economically in the sense of collective vs private means of production)
>WWII
Order in the Fascist sense is destroyed by Liberalism and Communism
>Cold War
Liberalism defeats Communism
>Post Cold War
We enter post modernity (I know technically that happens halfway through the 20th century but hear me out) and now the world is viewed through the Liberal perspectives of progress and growth. Picture Fukyamas end of history but now we see the rise of ideologies that exist outside the realms of modernity, and combine Liberalism with autocracy such as radical religions, State Capitalism, and state socialism.

reminder that the eternal trench warfare was 100% England's fault
>Wilhelm 2 wants to build a fleet
>Germany already has the world's stronger army
>if they dominated the sea, Germany would be the world power
>WW1 starts
>Germany intends to take France quickly (like in the Franco-Prussian war)
>goes through Belgium
>England has a deal with Belgium regarding Belgium's neutrality which literally expired the day before England declared war on Germany
>enters to stop German advance (German soldiers could literally see Paris)
>instead of swift end, it devolved to trench warfare that never changed until America got involved

why couldn't bongs just leave Europe to its business?
the war could have ended quickly, and no Treaty of Versaille to set up WW2

>which literally expired the day before England declared war on Germany
Going to need a citation on this, Hans.

>which literally expired the day before England declared war on Germany
Um wut?

The krauts thought themselves above their station and had to be rebuked.

Dumb Kraut

Don't think that was true but there was absolutely no precedent for the bongs entering the war. It was expected that they would stay neutral and their declaration of war was a surprise to say the least. One of the worst decisions the country ever made

>it's England's fault for coming to the aid of the neutral power they had agreed to protect after Germany invaded and raped the shit out of them

This is literally the exact same argument I here from wehraboos when they argue that England started WW2.

To holocaust the armenian filth

Dissolution of the abomination that was the G*rman empire

If Wilson wasn't such a Hun-loving cuck we might've never had WWII

To force the brits into massive debnts to (((banks))) so that they would have to fulfill the Balfour Declaration

That's incredibly interesting reading, thanks for the insight.

To show the world that my empire has the biggest dick

>lol wat? it was der germans dat started all dis, its deir fault they made me declare war

>Soviets are responsible for WW because Hitler attacked them

bretty good meme tho desu

>read HHH

Population reduction

you don't have to be responsible for a war to be on the top scale of awfulness in it

>Fascism rises out of the inter war periods economic failings.

This is a bit of a rambling post but I'd argue it's got a lot to do with consumerism and/or globalization, though mostly I'd say it's got to do with the old autocratic and aristocratic power structures left in shambles after ww1; that often had very little structural support, both from the rise of communists groups in the wake of the russian revolution, but also just from so much money being spent during the great war, along with so many heirs being killed or horribly wounded.

Fascism was seen as a way to sort of revitalize the vigor of the "old regime", at least in Austria, Italy, and Spain.
Austria dissolved it's Aristocracy in the early 1920's; oddly enough Von Mises and Hayek were both Ex-Aristocrats who basically were pro-fascism (Dolfuss) and were expelled after hitler annexed austria.

Nazism is a more complicated picture, I'd argue it's similarities to fascism have a lot to do with a sort of nostalgia or sentimentality to some kind of idealized past. Nazism always struck me as far more psychotic than the regimes/ideology of Mussolini, or Franco. Though that owes a lot to the cold-war incentivizing certain historical events to be paved over least they raise questions that aren't convenient.

L'Alsace et la Lorraine. Tu croyais qu'on allait oublier? Bienvenue en France, reviens quand tu veux.

>Fascism was seen as a way to sort of revitalize the vigor of the "old regime"
Fascism was explicitly anti-aristocratic

>Nazism always struck me as far more psychotic than the regimes/ideology of Mussolini, or Franco.

This is a fairly accurate statement, though. All three regimes were totalitarian, but only the nazis came to power with the overt goal of expunging a set (of) group(s) from society, with no holds barred. Both Franco's and Mussolini's regime imprisoned and executed opponents and dissidents, but these processes were more akin to the absolute/authoritarian monarchies they replaced. They were less systemic, more lenient and dare I say it, more humane in their purges. As you accurately pointed out, these movements grew out of a wish to reinvigorate the old regimes, so I interpret these processes as follows:

The fascist regimes of Franco and Mussolini performed purges, dissappearances, murders etc out of a perceived or real necessity to perpetuate, preserve and defend the new systems which had been put into place. Nazism is different in that the set goal of the system all along was to purge society. It became the central goal and ideological tenet, and not a means to an end.

>Fascism was explicitly anti-aristocratic

I don't think he meant to say otherwise, but the fascist movements of the 20th century all wanted to reclaim "lost glory" of their respective nations, in some form or another. Hitler himself was massively anti-aristocratic, still doesn't mean he didn't have a massive hardon for the German Empire. They were in love with the structures and the order that the old regimes had put into place, but not necessarily the people running the system. If you steal the keys to someone's vacant dilapidated house and start restoring it, doesn't mean you are in love with or respect the previous owners. You just want to own the house and make it look good again.

I HATE ENGLISH SO MUCH
FUCK FCK FCK FUCK
FUCKING JUST DIE
FUCKIG ANGLO SUBHUMANS JUST DIE

Fighting external enemies was a useful tactic to quell unrest on the home front. See how the large unions supported the war effort because of the guaranteed work and how anti war labor advocates were jailed en masse. WWI did not need to happen geopolitically but it was a very effective ameliorative to quiet growing revolutionary movements. In short capitalism required it.

>its england's fault germany invaded belgium and france

The eternal anglo. The germans thought they could get rid of them, what they ended up finding out was there was an entire country across the atlantic that was basically eternal anglo 2.0. People have been trying to destroy Anglo 1 for ages, just doesnt work, even we will collapse before the UK

>grrr ebil english why did they stop hitler from winning ww2 why they do that

I, am from usa and love the uk. I think of them very favorably.

>pls daddy Nigel can I suck your cock even though you consider me a subhuman

Ah yes, I should hate every country that isn't the USA. You're still miles off the usa and australia anyway.

>anglo argumentative skills.

>that never changed until America got involved
so you agree the allies won only because of USA and our superior fighting skills?

I don't know what the point was but wasn't it bound to happen eventually? The sheer amount of alliances crossing the continent and such.

>tfw when kids from Canada and Australia/NZ had to die in some muddy trench in France or Gallipoli for some dumb monarchist anger/diplomatic shit:

>Austria wanted to increase influence in balkans. Wants serbia
>Serbia shoots heir to austro-hungarian throne
>Austria Invades Serbia
>Russia Declares War on Austria to protect serbia
>Germany declares war against Russia due to alliances and protecting Austria
>France, in an alliance with Russia declares war on Germany, also because they want Alsace and Lorraine back after they got BISMARCKED
>Germany is ready for this, decides to invade France via belgium
>UK gaurentees belgium, goes to war. Then brings in there colonies/dominions
>somehow turkey got involved but idk

>somehow turkey got involved but idk

Turkey was butthurt due to getting smacked several times by the Russians in the 18th and 19th centuries. The whole Balkan order/system was basically created by repeated Russo-Ottoman wars over control of the Balkans. They were all too keen to join to split the peninsula with the Austrians (ironically, considering past centuries) and perhaps even reverse some Russian gains around the Black Sea.

No, when the US entered the war they had 1915-tier tactics and just tried to rush the enemy trenches. The economic support from the US and the fresh manpower from it entering the war was the deciding factor.

*fails to provide a counterargument*

Serbian autism that went way too far.

The British had withheld a recently built battleship, the gincourt I believe, so the German's sent two replacement, which managed to avoid French and British fleets??? and made it to Istanbul.

Then the Turkish flagged but German crewed ships sailed across the black sea and bombarded Russian port causing the triple entent to declare war on Turkey

Destroying the Habsburg dynasty.

I know that was the direct series of events that drew them into the conflict. Perhaps they could have been avoided? If they came clean about what happened, namely who crewed the ships and offered reimbursement to Russia, the Ottomans might not have been involved. Or maybe they could even have joined as an ally in exchange for aid in propping up the failing state apparatus?

Think about it: Russia doesn't have to waste resources and men in the Caucasus, Britain doesn't have to send troops to fight in the ME theater, and the Balkan entente members now have a neutral or even friendly country to the rear. If the turks join they only have to fight a one front war, instead of a triple front.

I don't think anyone expected the war to last this long and to be this destructive.

The Germans beleived in the Schlieffen plan and that the war would go down the same as the Franco-Prussian war went. The British on the other hand were sure that once they halted the German advance in western France and Belgium, the Germans would starve out due to the blockade.

Like all wars it made sense at the time, but it turned out to being the most absurd war of all.