@ABWorsham4 probably still scared the starving civilians , carrying rifles and 2 bullets each, half to death at the time though .
What do You think?
-
I want to know what you guys think… Explain why you voted the way you did.
-
I couldn’t answer both yes and no… :-)
WW2 was caused mainly by the same reasons that caused WW1, and WW1 was caused mainly by the same reasons that caused… :evil:
Seriously, WW2 is the last, until now, war that Europeans have been fighting since before 500 B.C. Reasons have never changed, explanations and propaganda have changed quite a lot.
Romans was sacked 470 A.D. and then that culture moved north. The rest is history.
-
World War Two “offically” started when Germany invaded Poland. The reason for the attack on Poland was the recapture the port of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, which seperated Germany from East Prussia.
Germany did not want to start a “World War” in 1939. The War was the result of the French and British declaring war on Germany for the attack on Poland.
Poland was re-created as a result of World War One, along with much of Eastern Europe. This reason alone proves that the results of World War One led to World War Two.
You can even go back a previous generation and suggest that the Franco-Prussian War partly led to World War One.
-
No doubt whatsoever, but it goes back to Napoleon actually when france was defeated completely by 1815, but saw the rise of Prussia and England and grew tiresome of powers that because the new safeguard of European civilization and Industry, then tried to stop Germany in 1870 and again in 1914 from getting too powerful, then out of her need to victimize Germany to hide her own guilt for stealing back the Alsace Lorraine and backing her scapegoat in a corner like a trapped animal forced upon her a tough decision in accepting the leadership from Herr Hitler.
1815/1870/1914/1939 all related of who had economic and military hegemony and who was prepared to fight for it. Every nation was guilty of the same thing except the common denominator is france in all of this.
-
Austria must be considered as one of the top powers in Europe between 1815-1870. Germany and Italy both had strong Austria influence that had to get removed both modern nations could exist.
-
@ABWorsham:
Austria must be considered as one of the top powers in Europe between 1815-1870. Germany and Italy both had strong Austria influence that had to get removed both modern nations could exist.
Don’t forget about the Ottomans as well. Their collapse in the Balkans was the main contributor to tensions between the Austria and Russia, which, when the Archduke was assasinated, started World War 1.
-
The Russians always wanted a warm water port for about 100 years and Serbia was a possible stepping stone to get something done. They also clashed with the Ottomans by supporting the Armenians revolting, so as to weaken a further area that was potentially close to a warm water port in Persia. But knowing of this the French aligned with Russia because they knew Germany and Austria were natural allies and that the Austrians didn’t like the Russians because Russia wanted the land on the other side of the Bosporus so as to get the warm water port.
WW1 is just as fascinating as WW2 because its the bridge between old and new military technology. I wish AA would make a version
-
@Imperious:
The Russians always wanted a warm water port for about 100 years and Serbia was a possible stepping stone to get something done. They also clashed with the Ottomans by supporting the Armenians revolting, so as to weaken a further area that was potentially close to a warm water port in Persia. But knowing of this the French aligned with Russia because they knew Germany and Austria were natural allies and that the Austrians didn’t like the Russians because Russia wanted the land on the other side of the Bosporus so as to get the warm water port.
WW1 is just as fascinating as WW2 because its the bridge between old and new military technology. I wish AA would make a version
I would love a World War One AA game!!! World War One saw the collapse of the old order in Europe. The subject is amazing. It’s sad that World War One gets forgotten by some many people due to the popularity of World War Two.
-
ok here you go:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12490.0
use these rules, maps, and player aids and cards, play tested 60 times at least by different groups over the last 2-3 years.
-
i said yes because many people in germany hated how the lost expecially the “jew hater” lol.
anyways also because germany saw the advantage of how gb got weaker- germans were tired of paying money of a war that was not evil vs. good
also a&a ww1 would be a&c europe
lol
“Evil always wins the wars” thats why the allies won says hitler!
- germans were tired of paying money of a war that was not evil vs. good
-
I think that you all make good points; however, you all seem to target the European theater. I understand that WWI was dominantly a European conflict. But to be a world war don’t we need to cover things that happened between China and Japan? Had Europe decided to play nice I think that Japan would still had intentions of moving heavier into the mainland.
I am not trying to pick a fight I respect your opinions and want your insight on this.
-
ww1 started ww2 japan was attking china b4 ww2 because of some mishaps then japanese started taking islands instead of gaining more chinese ground…
then chinese peeps waited for japan to attack usa also usa had 1 aircraft carrier in the pacific in 1941-1943 because the japs blew up the other ones or was it 1941-1944 lol anyways that aircraft carrier stood many battles japan would have won the battle no offense japanese got unlucky like dice rolls lol
-
to a degree. i’m doing a professional book report on the book _Cataclysm _:the first world war as political tragedy, and its a superb book.
everyone you ever ever ever needed to know about WWI. it doesnt go that much into depth in the battles, but covers major aspects of battles, but its really all about background. its awesome.
its argued in a part in the book that the Versailles treaty didnt necessarily have to create the second world war, but certain demands(primarily by the french) and then the inability of france to back up those threats of force in case of noncompliance certainly exacerbated the problem.
a lot of things had to go wrong in the perfect way at the perfect times to create possibilities for a new conflict.__
-
hmmm hope you get a good mark dude/dudet
-
Europe had become fairly interdependent prior to WW1. I remember reading about all the distributors in all the cars made in Europe were made by Bosch in Germany. There were other examples of interdependency but that’s the one that comes to mind. With that type of business going on fighting a massive war was stupid from a business standpoint.
Since the hot headed nature of Europian politics had changed so much by the 1930’s you needed to have a few lunatics take charge in a couple countries. Enter Adolf and Benito. Keeping Italy in check would have been little problem for the major powers. Hitler’s Germany on the other hand was a different story. Since a major part of Hitler’s rise was due to him promising to erase the disgrace of the Versailles Treaty I have to say WW1 had something to do with WW2 being fought.
Back to that hot head thing. With most Europian leaders being much more level headed than their predecessors I don’t think a major Europian war was likely without the likes of Hitler. As for the PTO. Let’s be real. We b!tch slapped the Nips with 15% of our economic might then gave them a couple nice parting gifts. Japan against The USA, and her Europian allies would have been over before the Japanese were done celebrating Pearl Harbor.
-
Ok the reason for the allies winning ww1 was because of italy if italy stayed with the centrals then the centrals would have the ottomans, bulgaria, germany, austro-hungarian empire and italy. I have played many games with ww1 and without usa the allies would have won still. (the allies mostly great britian tricked, usa, by making the mexican telegram and allowing the americans to find it to make a war agasinst the centrals.
Italy was the deciding factor of ww1 if italy stayed centrals then italy would make a new front for france and for allieing the allies a new front opens up for the centrals you do the math also italy was a bigger factor in ww1 but not so much as ww2 -
Italy back stabbed the Central powers in WW1 because she could take more land from the Hapsburgs than from anyone else. Without Italy fighting against the Austro-Hungarians Russia would have had more pressure to deal with and may have folded sooner. This would have freed more German units to fight in the west sooner. Add in an Italian attack on France and it’s easy to see the France being overrun.
One would have to wonder how things would have turned out for the Ottomans had the Italians fought on the Central side. The Brits would have had to deal with another naval force in the Mediterranean. How would this have effected their operations against the Turks in the Mid-East? Had Russia been knocked out sooner could the Turks have thrown more forces into the south to face the Brits? I could see this additional pressure on GB effecting operations in Africa also.
More Turks and Gerries plus some Italian presence for the Brits to face on the minor fronts. More Austro-Hungarian troops for the Russians to face. More German soldiers and the Italian Army hitting the Western Front before the Americans get involved. How likely is it WW2 gets fought in this scenario?
-
Thank you for agreeing with me (my friends do not beleive me though) that the italians gave the war to the allied side.
i would like to pinot out that great britian was very mean in ww1 they made false promises in ww1 to italy to get 3 free islands they got none of themSee what i’m saying also i would like to point out that the italians joined the allies becaus eof the paris pact (dang, Them!) in ww1 the germans did not want to conquer as much all they actually wanted was to defend them selves really.
-
I’d say the Treaty of Versailles factored heavily into Germany going back to war, along with the fact they were still feeling the sting from the “traitors” who ran the country in WWI, whom they felt backstabbed them into throwing in the towel.
-
“great britian was very mean in ww1”
I’ve always found it ironic how barbaric the Brits were in their colonies and how they portrayed the Germans in WW1. Lord Kitchener caused thousands of women and children to die in concentration camps during the Boer War. Yet he was held up as a person of high morale character even in the U.S. Remember the “Uncle Sam Wants You” posters were inspired by the “Lord Kitchener Wants You” posters that were all over G.B. It’s sad what horrors man can ignore of it suits his own interests.
Suggested Topics
