Generally speaking.

I hate to nit pick here, but where did I imply it did?

I like to think I would have had the courage not to take part in it.

You had made a comment a few posts back about the US being late in both World Wars. My comment was in response to that, the rest was just lost in translation (from english to american) I guess.

U.S. involvement in both world wars was inevitable, necessary and in your interest. And your government knew it.
From a British point of view, we'd been trying to involve you sooner than later.
Had you been involved earlier on both counts, both wars would have ended much sooner and for the betterment of all.
This isn't a serious criticism btw. Just a factual and historical observation.

No offence intended.

Hm, that's a good question. I guess the answer is no. For example, I find the American Revolutionary War to be very boring and know practically nothing about it, even though it's arguably, or not so arguably, the most important war in my nation's history. On the other hand, I find the 100 Years War to be fascinating, and now a great deal more about it than the Revolutionary War.

Erm... what?

:laughing:

Actually, what the British do really does affect us. At least in terms of modern foreign policy.

I'd say the opposite applies more, these days.

What I find 'interesting' about WWI (if I can indulge myself in using this term) is the politics of great powers that led to it and the shaping of modern Europe after it. I mean, it started because of the clashing imperialistic interests of great empires which, ironically, led to their crash by the time the war was over.

It was definitely the beginning of the end for the British empire.
The second world war just about broke us. I think we only finished paying off the lend/lease debt to the U.S and Canada in 2006!

Before WW1 Britain was the most powerful nation on earth. By the end of WW2 the U.S. took that dubious honour.

Yeah, I think I'd agree with you. With the balance of power now favoring the U.S., our relationship with you guys has definitely changed (i.e. we're not you're bitches so much anymore). But at the same time, modern U.S. foreign policy has propagated the notion that we've got the U.K.'s back. The same goes for U.K. policy. Notable events that reinforce this idea include Iraq (obviously), but also the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Falklands, etc. There still very much is a cause and effect thing going on thats a result of our close relationship. It might be somewhat less relevant today, but our relationship is still very much dictating each other's foreign policy to a certain extent.

It could be argued successfully that what the UK eat, the U.S. actually has no choice to shit.

Britain's past involvement as a super power is responsible for the mess in Iraq, Iran, Israel (the whole of the middle east actually), Afghanistan and the Balkans.
Not to mention countless other potential tinderboxes around the world.

Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire also ceased to exist and not to forget that bolshevik revolution killed the Russian Empire. And although the League of Nations was created (if I remember correctly that led to United Nations after the WW II), new tensions were created because of the new gap between East and West Europe with the rise of Soviet Union. Yeah 20th century was truly fucked up. I don't even have to mention fascism.

What's your predictions for the 21st century dankrsta?

Eh, I don't like to predict things, but I can hope that European Union will turn out to be successful, flexible, and free from the strong US influence.

Not if the 'New Rome' has anything to do with it.

does the Nova Roma "movement" really have any influence?

I think he meant that USA is the 'New Rome'. That's how I understood it.

duh...:shycouch:

i was gonna say that people who dress up on weekend and practice the roman rituals....although they call themselves a "sovereign state" are not much of a threat

on that...all empires fall and all festivals end...the US will have the same fate

I love that era of aviation. The red baron is like the most badass thing ever.

What's interesting about the First World War is the role played by class in the society of the time, with no real hardship among the rich, and the poor massacred like cattle due to the misadvised policy of top brass who had inherited their positions. The impact this would have on the 20th century is fascinating, especially considering the last few years have shown how social class is still very much an issue.

Yeah, it was completely stupid and awesome at the same time. There was lots of glory involved for those who did well (like the Red Baron), but I find it hard to understand the relative strategic importance of winning such dogfights. Perhaps protecting zeppelins or something from enemy fire (?) ..

But yeah, it was totally cool nonetheless :)

Well, I know that the early dogfighters were also bombers. So that probably had something to do with it.

Yeah, I am of course thinking of the kind of dogfighters similar to the picture I posted earlier .. although I'll repost it here.

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraf...1-dogfight.jpg

I think this is the kind of fokker flown at some point by the Red Baron himself. I was not really sure if these commonly carried bombs or not, but if you say they did, I'll take your word for it. Aside from bombing, they could of course have strategic importance as scouts as well so I'm not saying whatever they did would be completely pointless .. just maybe a bit compared to some of the other stuff that went on. Like generally, how much of the war was won and lost in the air by these dogfighter planes?

I guess I've been partial to the WWII due to only learning that at school (I didn't continue history). Due to a majority of war books being based on WWII I've mainly only been introduced to stories from that respect. I find war incredibly interesting full stop.

Growing up, I heard lots of little stories from the war from old teachers and grandparents and such that were alive to experience it. That's another thing that adds to WWII's interestingness.

Originally used for reconnaissance. In fact, using them for anything else was considered a war crime.
It quickly progressed from shooting at each other with hand held weapons, to mounted machine guns.

Yep. Early bombing runs also dropped bricks instead of explosives.

I don't find WWI interesting. Too much military inefficiency. Enormous amounts of casualties, only to achieve mediocre tactic and strategic results.

Trivia: French troop transport in the Battle of the Marne. Taxis:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5558/taximarne.jpg

First Battle of the Marne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you checked out the wheels on that taxi ? It must`ve been like riding a bicycle through a swamp. It`s just one more example of this :

What makes the First war sad for me is that, more than in most wars, the honest patriotism of the ordinary soldier in The Great War was squandered away through a series of disastrous decisions, as at the infamous battle of the Somme : 40,000 allied casualties in one day, partly because soldiers were told,incorrectly,that the enemy`s barbed wire had been shot away.

As some guy once said, "You can no more win a war than you can "win" a hurricane "

This is why I asked in the "What are you reading?" thread. I picked up "The Proud Tower" to educate myself further. All I really ever knew for certain was Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's attempted assassination sparked it.

The thing about WWI is that it pitches the global currents for the entirety of the 20th century. Why was Germany, which is today considered a Western Nation today, linked with Western Opposition? How did the Middle Eat tie in with all of these countries we always hear about?

As an American, its an odd thing to talk about because the war was 50/50 in favorability then, and doesn't have a unifying force today either. Hitler was something we could rally against, and still use as a guidepost to determine why we don't like centralized power. WWI, though setting the course for everything relating to world events, diplomacy, future wars, and fueding factions within countries for the next 94 years.

I find the Spanish Civil War more interesting than both the World Wars, I think.

I have to say that I find WWII much more interesting. While it has been done to death in pop culture, I still find it hasn't taken anything out of it for me. I think it's the only Modern Era period that can stack up with the Classics, Egyptian history, and the Middle Ages in terms of interest for me.

What?

WWII is on par with all of Egyptian history, Classical Literature, and the Middle Ages - which I assume means globally?

No I'm talking about certain periods of those histories.

As far as I'm aware there was nothing "attempted" about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
Each period of time has an effect on future wars, world events etc.
Pre WW1 and the Franco-Prussian war (amongst others) had some say in the many allegiances between nations that preceded WW1. The alliances forged prior to the assassination of the Duke was only a matter of lighting the blue touch paper. Years previously the major players had already embarked on an unprecedented arms race for a war that was unavoidable.
These European nations had empires and it was only inevitable that these interests would become involved.
WW2 as you rightly point out was a product of WW1 and in turn the current situation in the middle east is, arguably, a product of WW2.

The point I'm making, is that there is no starting point with history. The past determines the present and the present determines the future.

"Why was Germany, which is today considered a Western Nation today, linked with Western Opposition?"
Because they didn't have enough allies.
Had they had the support they may well have got away with what the allies have done and are getting away with in the middle east today.

Actually there was, but I get what you're saying.

They tried to kill him a few times before they pulled it off with a suicide bomber.

He wasn't killed by a suicide bomber, he was killed by a guy with a pistol.