feel free to set up a thread about the death of rasputin if you want:mad:
or else head barman at the Moscow Hilton…
ah now ncc, to fully understand the power of rasputin you have to understand the myth in life and death the man was, and by understanding that, then you can begin to start contemplating the question
yes, but from my opening post i have tailored this thread for people who take that as a given
good point 
Quality:D
NCCs on a roll this weather
I dont know about that, a WW2 style beating for Germany in WW1 on their own soil would have been more influential all round.
The Russian monarchy would have fallen one way or another as a result of the war. It then reasonable to state that the somewhat democratic result would be taken over by the bols as they did in 1917.
Speaking of the War, and its causes, could one of the established Historians give me their view on the below? Doing a bit of light reading on it…
When looking at the causes of World War 1 it is quite tempting to blame the alliance systems for the wide spread nature of the war. However, the alliances did not create tension they merely recorded the fact that tension existed. And while they most certainly played a role in drawing the lines, no country began fighting in 1914 to fulfil the terms of an alliance. Ultimately war came because imperialism, mass politics, nationalism, economic competition and an all out arms race had made international politics too callous for peaceful compromise and co-existence. To a certain degree the alliance systems were a continuation of the Vienna system of guarantees, but with the inception of new imperialism the old conservative ways shattered as each nation tried to implement its place in the sun. What began as a relatively safe scramble for prizes outside Europe, turned into a deadly struggle for world power. Although most of the powerful nations were guilty of playing the game, Germany became the main agitator in this new imperial thrust as it looked to cement its position as a world leader. The aggression showed in times like both Moroccan crises, the bad diplomacy exerted such as the Ams telegram, and its ardent stance in backing Austria in the Balkans, not only ended French isolation but it firmly divided this struggle for world power into two camps.
Another symptom of tension, and one that was more fundamental to causing the war than the alliances, was the arms race. While it was not an obvious reason for one, none the less, once a crisis had occurred, the military preparedness of the nations could, and did, affect its course. The inaugural naval race saw Germany entice Great Britain out of its splendid isolation by threatening its dominant position on the seas, but as politics broke down and as nationalism and imperialism heated up, the immediate years before the war saw a huge surge in the military of all the major powers. This then transferred into the realm of politics and the arms race led to the militarization of diplomacy, with the best example of this seen in the second Moroccan crisis when Germany sent a gun boat to demand concessions from France. As the stakes began to rise, each nation felt that it could no longer back down as in years gone by. All of the major powers had fought in a war in the half century leading up to the great one and as Clausewitz dictum professes War was the continuation of policy by other means but by 1914 this war was going to be fought by the people till the death.
An imperative cause of the war, and indeed of most tension in Europe for the preceding century, was that of Nationalism. It was central to all the other issues that contributed to war and it was a direct cause to war in relation to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as it offered the Habsburgs the prospect to quash Serbian interest in a larger Slavic state that would ensue the breaking up of their empire. In the leading nations nationalism was instrumental in the current plight of Imperialism, the arms race and the quest of ultimate control of world affairs. For the most part it was applied from the top down and by the eve of war most of the peoples of the main powers were in a flurry of nationalistic frenzy. However, the onset of war came from a region that was still caught in the tangle of old imperialism where nations were trying to establish themselves from the ground up. Once the Ottoman Empire was overthrown in the area this precipitated a whole host of problems. As a result Serbia found herself enlarged, full of self confidence, backed by Russia and with aspirations of freeing the Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria, as mentioned, needed control of the area to sustain its empire. Germany needed Austrian control as it not only added as a buffer from Russia but more importantly it wanted control of the region as a gateway to the Middle East and the straits. Naturally Russia opposed this as it encroached upon her own aspirations for the area, both defensive and economic. France and more so Britain also had an interest in the region but predominately it was the straits and gateway to the middle east that chiefly concerned them, for all the great powers believed that those who controlled the middle east was ultimately in the hot seat to control world affairs. Therefore Germany, using Austria, made a ploy for it, while Russia, Britain and France endeavoured to stop them. War could have happened at anytime in the twenty or so years leading to the great war but for one reason or another was averted. The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom. By 1914 diplomacy had been well and truly been exhausted and each nation felt that it was more dangerous to stay out of a war then to enter it.
[quote=“ChocolateMice”]Speaking of the War, and its causes, could one of the established Historians give me their view on the below? Doing a bit of light reading on it…
When looking at the causes of World War 1 it is quite tempting to blame the alliance systems for the wide spread nature of the war. However, the alliances did not create tension they merely recorded the fact that tension existed. And while they most certainly played a role in drawing the lines, no country began fighting in 1914 to fulfil the terms of an alliance. Ultimately war came because imperialism, mass politics, nationalism, economic competition and an all out arms race had made international politics too callous for peaceful compromise and co-existence. To a certain degree the alliance systems were a continuation of the Vienna system of guarantees, but with the inception of new imperialism the old conservative ways shattered as each nation tried to implement its place in the sun. What began as a relatively safe scramble for prizes outside Europe, turned into a deadly struggle for world power. Although most of the powerful nations were guilty of playing the game, Germany became the main agitator in this new imperial thrust as it looked to cement its position as a world leader. The aggression showed in times like both Moroccan crises, the bad diplomacy exerted such as the Ams telegram, and its ardent stance in backing Austria in the Balkans, not only ended French isolation but it firmly divided this struggle for world power into two camps.
Another symptom of tension, and one that was more fundamental to causing the war than the alliances, was the arms race. While it was not an obvious reason for one, none the less, once a crisis had occurred, the military preparedness of the nations could, and did, affect its course. The inaugural naval race saw Germany entice Great Britain out of its splendid isolation by threatening its dominant position on the seas, but as politics broke down and as nationalism and imperialism heated up, the immediate years before the war saw a huge surge in the military of all the major powers. This then transferred into the realm of politics and the arms race led to the militarization of diplomacy, with the best example of this seen in the second Moroccan crisis when Germany sent a gun boat to demand concessions from France. As the stakes began to rise, each nation felt that it could no longer back down as in years gone by. All of the major powers had fought in a war in the half century leading up to the great one and as Clausewitz dictum professes War was the continuation of policy by other means but by 1914 this war was going to be fought by the people till the death.
An imperative cause of the war, and indeed of most tension in Europe for the preceding century, was that of Nationalism. It was central to all the other issues that contributed to war and it was a direct cause to war in relation to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as it offered the Habsburgs the prospect to quash Serbian interest in a larger Slavic state that would ensue the breaking up of their empire. In the leading nations nationalism was instrumental in the current plight of Imperialism, the arms race and the quest of ultimate control of world affairs. For the most part it was applied from the top down and by the eve of war most of the peoples of the main powers were in a flurry of nationalistic frenzy. However, the onset of war came from a region that was still caught in the tangle of old imperialism where nations were trying to establish themselves from the ground up. Once the Ottoman Empire was overthrown in the area this precipitated a whole host of problems. As a result Serbia found herself enlarged, full of self confidence, backed by Russia and with aspirations of freeing the Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria, as mentioned, needed control of the area to sustain its empire. Germany needed Austrian control as it not only added as a buffer from Russia but more importantly it wanted control of the region as a gateway to the Middle East and the straits. Naturally Russia opposed this as it encroached upon her own aspirations for the area, both defensive and economic. France and more so Britain also had an interest in the region but predominately it was the straits and gateway to the middle east that chiefly concerned them, for all the great powers believed that those who controlled the middle east was ultimately in the hot seat to control world affairs. Therefore Germany, using Austria, made a ploy for it, while Russia, Britain and France endeavoured to stop them. War could have happened at anytime in the twenty or so years leading to the great war but for one reason or another was averted. The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom. By 1914 diplomacy had been well and truly been exhausted and each nation felt that it was more dangerous to stay out of a war then to enter it.[/quote]
what the gist of the article?
Its my own piece not an article…
The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom…
[quote=“ChocolateMice”]Its my own piece not an article…
The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom…[/quote]
D+
Must try harder.
Lay off the dope.
[quote=“ChocolateMice”]Its my own piece not an article…
The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom…[/quote]
read a junior cert hitory book & it hould answer your question
Cheers guys.
[quote=“ChocolateMice”]Speaking of the War, and its causes, could one of the established Historians give me their view on the below? Doing a bit of light reading on it…
When looking at the causes of World War 1 it is quite tempting to blame the alliance systems for the wide spread nature of the war. However, the alliances did not create tension they merely recorded the fact that tension existed. And while they most certainly played a role in drawing the lines, no country began fighting in 1914 to fulfil the terms of an alliance. Ultimately war came because imperialism, mass politics, nationalism, economic competition and an all out arms race had made international politics too callous for peaceful compromise and co-existence. To a certain degree the alliance systems were a continuation of the Vienna system of guarantees, but with the inception of new imperialism the old conservative ways shattered as each nation tried to implement its place in the sun. What began as a relatively safe scramble for prizes outside Europe, turned into a deadly struggle for world power. Although most of the powerful nations were guilty of playing the game, Germany became the main agitator in this new imperial thrust as it looked to cement its position as a world leader. The aggression showed in times like both Moroccan crises, the bad diplomacy exerted such as the Ams telegram, and its ardent stance in backing Austria in the Balkans, not only ended French isolation but it firmly divided this struggle for world power into two camps.
Another symptom of tension, and one that was more fundamental to causing the war than the alliances, was the arms race. While it was not an obvious reason for one, none the less, once a crisis had occurred, the military preparedness of the nations could, and did, affect its course. The inaugural naval race saw Germany entice Great Britain out of its splendid isolation by threatening its dominant position on the seas, but as politics broke down and as nationalism and imperialism heated up, the immediate years before the war saw a huge surge in the military of all the major powers. This then transferred into the realm of politics and the arms race led to the militarization of diplomacy, with the best example of this seen in the second Moroccan crisis when Germany sent a gun boat to demand concessions from France. As the stakes began to rise, each nation felt that it could no longer back down as in years gone by. All of the major powers had fought in a war in the half century leading up to the great one and as Clausewitz dictum professes War was the continuation of policy by other means but by 1914 this war was going to be fought by the people till the death.
An imperative cause of the war, and indeed of most tension in Europe for the preceding century, was that of Nationalism. It was central to all the other issues that contributed to war and it was a direct cause to war in relation to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as it offered the Habsburgs the prospect to quash Serbian interest in a larger Slavic state that would ensue the breaking up of their empire. In the leading nations nationalism was instrumental in the current plight of Imperialism, the arms race and the quest of ultimate control of world affairs. For the most part it was applied from the top down and by the eve of war most of the peoples of the main powers were in a flurry of nationalistic frenzy. However, the onset of war came from a region that was still caught in the tangle of old imperialism where nations were trying to establish themselves from the ground up. Once the Ottoman Empire was overthrown in the area this precipitated a whole host of problems. As a result Serbia found herself enlarged, full of self confidence, backed by Russia and with aspirations of freeing the Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria, as mentioned, needed control of the area to sustain its empire. Germany needed Austrian control as it not only added as a buffer from Russia but more importantly it wanted control of the region as a gateway to the Middle East and the straits. Naturally Russia opposed this as it encroached upon her own aspirations for the area, both defensive and economic. France and more so Britain also had an interest in the region but predominately it was the straits and gateway to the middle east that chiefly concerned them, for all the great powers believed that those who controlled the middle east was ultimately in the hot seat to control world affairs. Therefore Germany, using Austria, made a ploy for it, while Russia, Britain and France endeavoured to stop them. War could have happened at anytime in the twenty or so years leading to the great war but for one reason or another was averted. The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom. By 1914 diplomacy had been well and truly been exhausted and each nation felt that it was more dangerous to stay out of a war then to enter it.[/quote]
Its a decent opening CM. Are you going to develop the idea of how nationalism was developed in the various nations and why? Some good books on how cultural nationalism contributed to political nationalism.
“On to Belgrade!” shouted Švejk.
Ta…Thats for another day tho… Agrarian disturbances in 19th century Ireland is next up.
[quote=“ChocolateMice”]Speaking of the War, and its causes, could one of the established Historians give me their view on the below? Doing a bit of light reading on it…
When looking at the causes of World War 1 it is quite tempting to blame the alliance systems for the wide spread nature of the war. However, the alliances did not create tension they merely recorded the fact that tension existed. And while they most certainly played a role in drawing the lines, no country began fighting in 1914 to fulfil the terms of an alliance. Ultimately war came because imperialism, mass politics, nationalism, economic competition and an all out arms race had made international politics too callous for peaceful compromise and co-existence. To a certain degree the alliance systems were a continuation of the Vienna system of guarantees, but with the inception of new imperialism the old conservative ways shattered as each nation tried to implement its place in the sun. What began as a relatively safe scramble for prizes outside Europe, turned into a deadly struggle for world power. Although most of the powerful nations were guilty of playing the game, Germany became the main agitator in this new imperial thrust as it looked to cement its position as a world leader. The aggression showed in times like both Moroccan crises, the bad diplomacy exerted such as the Ams telegram, and its ardent stance in backing Austria in the Balkans, not only ended French isolation but it firmly divided this struggle for world power into two camps.
Another symptom of tension, and one that was more fundamental to causing the war than the alliances, was the arms race. While it was not an obvious reason for one, none the less, once a crisis had occurred, the military preparedness of the nations could, and did, affect its course. The inaugural naval race saw Germany entice Great Britain out of its splendid isolation by threatening its dominant position on the seas, but as politics broke down and as nationalism and imperialism heated up, the immediate years before the war saw a huge surge in the military of all the major powers. This then transferred into the realm of politics and the arms race led to the militarization of diplomacy, with the best example of this seen in the second Moroccan crisis when Germany sent a gun boat to demand concessions from France. As the stakes began to rise, each nation felt that it could no longer back down as in years gone by. All of the major powers had fought in a war in the half century leading up to the great one and as Clausewitz dictum professes War was the continuation of policy by other means but by 1914 this war was going to be fought by the people till the death.
An imperative cause of the war, and indeed of most tension in Europe for the preceding century, was that of Nationalism. It was central to all the other issues that contributed to war and it was a direct cause to war in relation to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, as it offered the Habsburgs the prospect to quash Serbian interest in a larger Slavic state that would ensue the breaking up of their empire. In the leading nations nationalism was instrumental in the current plight of Imperialism, the arms race and the quest of ultimate control of world affairs. For the most part it was applied from the top down and by the eve of war most of the peoples of the main powers were in a flurry of nationalistic frenzy. However, the onset of war came from a region that was still caught in the tangle of old imperialism where nations were trying to establish themselves from the ground up. Once the Ottoman Empire was overthrown in the area this precipitated a whole host of problems. As a result Serbia found herself enlarged, full of self confidence, backed by Russia and with aspirations of freeing the Slavic peoples from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria, as mentioned, needed control of the area to sustain its empire. Germany needed Austrian control as it not only added as a buffer from Russia but more importantly it wanted control of the region as a gateway to the Middle East and the straits. Naturally Russia opposed this as it encroached upon her own aspirations for the area, both defensive and economic. France and more so Britain also had an interest in the region but predominately it was the straits and gateway to the middle east that chiefly concerned them, for all the great powers believed that those who controlled the middle east was ultimately in the hot seat to control world affairs. Therefore Germany, using Austria, made a ploy for it, while Russia, Britain and France endeavoured to stop them. War could have happened at anytime in the twenty or so years leading to the great war but for one reason or another was averted. The rise of nationalism, the various humiliations the different nations suffered, and the rise in militarism put Europe on a collision course that some historians have said was inevitable since the reformation and the splitting up of Christendom. By 1914 diplomacy had been well and truly been exhausted and each nation felt that it was more dangerous to stay out of a war then to enter it.[/quote]
you dont quite address your opening line - the alliances reflected widespread nationalism and militarism. They were not the primary cause of the war but were the key to the “widespread nature” of the war.
seriously guys - this thread is about what would have happened if rasputin stayed alive - it isnt a general history thread & there is strict parameters about who can post (dunph is it possible to lock threads from certain posters?)
also- if & when someone sets up a dedicated history thread please please can it be on speicifc interesting topics & not broad topics such as the world wars where no poster on here can bring anything to the table
KOH
NCC
[quote=“north county corncrake”]
please can it be on speicifc interesting topics & not broad topics such as the world wars where no poster on here can bring anything to the table
KOH
NCC[/quote]
:rolleyes:
never stopped you posting… fuckwit…
never stopped you posting… fuckwit…[/quote]
why so angry all the time mate?