Comments on: World War One: First war was impossible, then inevitable Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: DonnyBurger Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:10:29 +0000 “In early 1914, though, it seemed almost impossible that Britain and France would go to war with Germany to defend Russia against Austria-Hungary over a dispute with Serbia.”

I think this is simply wrong.
Britain and France hungered for war with Germany in order
to curb German power. The Franco-Prussian war in 1870/71
in which France (that was believed to be the superior power) was swept away in a couple of months had been a shock to them. The German military and economy were growing fast and by 1914 Germany had become so powerful that it could only be defeated by a grand coalition.
Serbia was a warmonger and firestarter that was continously supported by France and Russia.

By: italianneutral Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:33:45 +0000 I agree with you. In case of next international crisis countries should start to refuse automatic interventions due to treaties signed for defence purposes such as NATO till 1989 and the fall of URSS.
Presently NATO has shown unreasonable attitudes towards eastern enlargement .
We do not need a foreign policy like the one we had in the thirties. We ready have same economics and nobody is happy with it.

By: sarkozyrocks Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:00:50 +0000 @breezinthru: Well said, and agreed. However, my theory is much simpler – massively bruised egos: John Kerry feels cheated by history and finally this was his moment to shine on the world stage…thwarted by Putin. Same with Barack Obama…he was supposed to be the world’s great savior…thwarted and upstaged by Putin. Irrational, blinded payback supported by a US MSM that despises Putin’s anti-gay policies. The world loses.

By: sarkozyrocks Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:46:29 +0000 Of course economic self-interest doesn’t prevent all war…ask any divorced man with children. People aren’t entirely rational and economics are the dismal science for good reason.

By: breezinthru Sun, 29 Jun 2014 04:53:32 +0000 We can never understand what is going on in the Ukraine if we foolishly believe the western media’s heavily published premise that Russia is the aggressor in this situation. After the way western media portrayed WMD situation in Iraq pre-2003, we should know better than that. (Fool me once, shame on you… etc.)

The scandalous recording of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt’s phone call demonstrated two important points.

First, the US was involved in engineering the collapse of the Ukraine government. Second and more importantly, that there is a third major player hiding in the shadows in this situation.

The US knew perfectly well that if the government of the Ukraine collapsed, Russia would annex Crimea and instability in eastern Ukraine would ensue; Russia would try to maintain a buffer between its border and NATO countries.

If western media had any integrity it would not let anyone get away with feigning surprise while pointing their finger at Russia.

Western Ukraine is now more closely associated with the EU and ECB, so Russia’s gain of Crimea is more than offset by the shrinking of its buffer and instability on its border. We can see that instigating trouble in the Ukraine wasn’t in Russia’s interest.

The US had little to gain as a nation by the collapse of the Ukraine, but the Arab Spring demonstrated that the US has the technical ability to assist the collapse of certain governments. So if the US was not operating directly in its own interest, whose interest were they operating in? They were serving someone’s focused purpose. We can discover the answer to that question by discovering who gains the most by the collapse of the previous Ukraine government.

As I mentioned, the previously referenced phone call indicates the presence of third player in the background. Victoria Nuland’s infamous “F**K the EU” comment regarding EU diplomatic efforts, indicates that some EU diplomats were attempting to intervene. It’s inconceivable that the US would undertake such an effort in the Ukraine without colluding in some fashion with the EU, but some diplomats in EU obviously didn’t know what was going on, which also implies that some did.

Then who knew? I have given that matter some thought and I believe some high level people at the EU knew and most of rest who knew are more associated with the ECB and international corporations than with EU government. They have the most to gain, but sub rosa endeavors like the one in the Ukraine cannot be debated in the European Parliament and approved in broad daylight.

It’s likely that even Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt
were never informed of the big picture. Their phone call served (perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not) to deflect attention away from the group of people that wishes to remain in the shadows.

And that… major corporations and financial concerns angling for financial gain… is the greatest similarity between what is going on now and what happened a century ago. Geopolitical positioning and ethnicity are tools, not the underlying cause.

By: edgyinchina Sun, 29 Jun 2014 02:18:05 +0000 On the “good” side no one ever doubts the causes of World War II… ??? Tell me what this is?
Was it Pearl Harbor 1941? or was it the German annexation of the Sudatenland 1938? Was it the burning down of the Germany Parliment, or the Crystal Naght (the burning of all the Jewish temples in Berlin). Or was it even earlier when the Japanese bombed the USS Panay on the Yangtze in China in 1937? or even before that when the Japanese decided (for economic reasons) that they needed all that iron ore that was in Manchuria and attacked in 1932?… So when do you say that WW2 began?
Frankly, I don’t see the US being able to fight the war that is surely coming. With the internal divisions what they are, both economically, socially, and politically I don’t think the US will be around to fight. It may be that some individual ‘states’ of the old US might participate, but to act as a whole is not in the cards anymore. There is too much distrust and division within our nation.

By: lkofenglish Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:20:42 +0000 Can’t speak to World War I as you can write an entire book on the causes of that European monstrosity. On the “good” side no one ever doubts the causes of World War II…which of course matters a lot more than World War I.

The fact of the matter is not even mentioning the term “collective security” shows the author’s romaticized view of War…in particular “World War”…as well as his total ignorance of how the United States both a: aimed to solve the problem (the United Nations, NATO, dialogue, diplomacy, a professional military) and b: in fact did.

This has come at great cost mind you. But when I look at Ukraine and Iraq I do not see “World War I” at all but an understanding the failures of “Hiter and the Media” and how the State pushed back to defeat this pschyopathic menace to the human race.

It’s still slow going…but the going is going in the right direction. Away from “opinionators” and their Zionist masters.

By: jrpardinas Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:16:28 +0000 We are always lulled by conditions in the most recent past. They were lulled in 1914 and we are lulled now. It’s a recency bias of the human mind.

But there is no end to war. The politically and economically powerful will always fail to settle their differences through negotiated compromise.

And, most ominously, the common people will always rush to wave the flag (whichever flag), don the uniforms and take up guns to kill and be killed in very large numbers.

It’s as if death in the battlefield were preferable to the tedium and pointlessness typical of ordinary lives. That’s what will have to be fixed if anyone ever hopes to end war. I doubt it can be done.

By: DetailsDetails Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:03:43 +0000 Does anyone remember if it was May or June when Putin closed down MacDonald’s in Russia?

By: Jim1648 Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:34:27 +0000 Using the inadequacy of economic connections to argue against sanctions rather than military intervention is a curious way to prevent a world war. And then to top it off by pointing out the danger of alliances just compounds the mess.

I would say that there is a hidden agenda here, except that it is more muddled than hidden. Too much has been written about the causes of WW-I. It must pay well. That is the relevant economic interest.