World War One theories

Author Topic: World War One theories  (Read 13738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
World War One theories
« on: May 04, 2014, 02:30:50 PM »
Any theories or ideas on just what this war was all about or on the people who organised it?

I can't help but feeling one of the main British Imperial goals was to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

Offline ICU1I

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2014, 03:37:21 PM »
I recently finished reading the World War One section of Carol Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope and would recommend it.  The question that kept creeping into my mind while reading was:  Could the elites in each country be colluding to rid themselves of "excess" population?  These battles where each side would loose 500,000 people in one battle only to gain 12 miles of land were just insane, and it seems that when all was said and done nothing really changed except millions were dead.  There were parts about the Ottoman Empire and its part, but, in this book anyway, although an important part it didn't seem like it was a primary reason.  But that was just my take.
One paragraph that stuck out for me, along with the Rothschild name popping up as usual was:

"At all of these meetings, as at the Peace Conference itself, the political leaders were assisted by groups of experts and interested persons, sometimes self-appointed.  Many of these "experts" were members or associates of the international-banking fraternity.  At the Paris Peace Conference the experts numbered thousands and were organized into official staffs by most countries, even before the war ended. These experts were of the greatest importance.  They were formed into committees at Paris and given problem after problem, especially boundary problems, usually without any indication as to what principles should guide their decisions.  The importance of these committees of experts can be seen in the fact that in every case but one where a committee of experts submitted a unanimous report, the Supreme Council accepted its recommendation and incorporated it in the treaty.  The one case where a unanimous report was not accepted was concerned with the Polish Corridor, the same issue which had forced the Supreme Council to be cut down to the Council of Four in 1919 and the issue which led to the Second World War twenty years later."
"We could have better reality, if we would just participate in this one." Alan Watt

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2014, 05:23:17 PM »
Thank you for your view.

Reading around i also found this, from a description from a book on the subject:

The modern Middle East was forged in the crucible of the First World War, but few know the full story of how war actually came to the region. As Sean McMeekin reveals in this startling reinterpretation of the war, it was neither the British nor the French but rather a small clique of Germans and Turks who thrust the Islamic world into the conflict for their own political, economic, and military ends.

The Berlin-Baghdad Express tells the fascinating story of how Germany exploited Ottoman pan-Islamism in order to destroy the British Empire, then the largest Islamic power in the world. Meanwhile the Young Turks harnessed themselves to German military might to avenge Turkey’s hereditary enemy, Russia. Told from the perspective of the key decision-makers on the Turco-German side, many of the most consequential events of World War I—Turkey’s entry into the war, Gallipoli, the Armenian massacres, the Arab revolt, and the Russian Revolution—are illuminated as never before.

Drawing on a wealth of new sources, McMeekin forces us to re-examine Western interference in the Middle East and its lamentable results. It is an epic tragicomedy of unintended consequences, as Turkish nationalists give Russia the war it desperately wants, jihad begets an Islamic insurrection in Mecca, German sabotage plots upend the Tsar delivering Turkey from Russia’s yoke, and German Zionism midwifes the Balfour Declaration. All along, the story is interwoven with the drama surrounding German efforts to complete the Berlin to Baghdad railway, the weapon designed to win the war and assure German hegemony over the Middle East.

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2014, 10:53:07 AM »
Any theories or ideas on just what this war was all about or on the people who organised it?

I can't help but feeling one of the main British Imperial goals was to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

Buddy, main British Imperial goals was NOT TO DESTROY THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. To get more territories form Turks but not to destroy their Imperial state. In case of Ottoman Empire, first British goal not to allow fall of Istanbul in hands of Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians or Russians ( maybe Armenians ).

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2014, 11:32:39 AM »
The British did not engineer The Great War, they got played.

As for the Otterman Empire, they where an inevitable casualty. The other ancient empire, would be the Tsars Russia. Yet while the Tsar had selectively taken on board modern world practices, the Otterman had not attempted to adjust to the 20th century.

The way to solve these sort of big problems, is to start by asking the right classical questions.

Here are two all time classic starting points

(a) "Follow the money"

(b) "Cui Bono - Who stands to Gain"

The Great War obliterated the Tsars Russia, but then again the Tsar had told the banks such as rothschild, warburg etc to get lost, so no great surprise.
The Otterman empire was pathetic, it had less content than a wet paper bag.
The various european empires took a big hit, they all lost more than they gained, but most survived, all be it some what bankrupt.

America made a ridiculous amount of money, and went from being ignored as some colonial back water to owning all the damn gold, and as the biggest power broker on the block, it set up the League of Nations and set the basis of international political discussion that continues to this day.

America sat at home for pretty much the entire war. While horrific offensives such as the Somme cost the British, French and Germans just over a million men. The British paid for the Somme in loans from America. The cost of these loans is beyond comprehension. The British went bankrupt. Just take 1917-1918  when the British borrowed 4 Billion US Dollars . . . has anyone any idea what that would be in today's money ? The British have still not repaid the loans of the first world war back to america.

What's a little debt between friends?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

And, that is just the British, spare a thought that the French also ran out of there reserves of Gold, over seas investments etc . . .

Yea, Cui Bono.


And lets debunk the american military, while we are here.

The Americans lost 116,500 men 'fighting ' The Great War. Over 16 million people died in The Great War. To put that in perspective, that is about 0.1% of the population of America at that point in time. In other words, while America's entry into the War was decisive, it was for long term strategic reasons. The war had crippled the european powers, they where bankrupt, troops were on the verge of mutiny, they had run out of everything.

German high command gave in because of the threat of american troop involvement. They knew that after the last great offensive, which they nearly won, but ultimately the Luddendorf spring offensive failed, they could not win, but they could only destroy germany by trying. They called for an armistice. Tragically, because months earlier they really had almost won the war, many of the troops never understood why the high command capitualted in autumn of 1918, a real cause for the Nazis and what they called the great betrayal.


Yea, America got really, really, really, rich and suffered insignificant casualties.
If you think I am being too harsh, consider America has about 33,000 deaths a year from road accidents. So since the Great War actually went on for 4 years, 33,000 x 4 = the number of actual casualties.

Cui Bono.




Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2014, 11:52:46 AM »
The British did not engineer The Great War, they got played.

As for the Otterman Empire, they where an inevitable casualty. The other ancient empire, would be the Tsars Russia. Yet while the Tsar had selectively taken on board modern world practices, the Otterman had not attempted to adjust to the 20th century.

The way to solve these sort of big problems, is to start by asking the right classical questions.

Here are two all time classic starting points

(a) "Follow the money"

(b) "Cui Bono - Who stands to Gain"

The Great War obliterated the Tsars Russia, but then again the Tsar had told the banks such as rothschild, warburg etc to get lost, so no great surprise.
The Otterman empire was pathetic, it had less content than a wet paper bag.
The various european empires took a big hit, they all lost more than they gained, but most survived, all be it some what bankrupt.

America made a ridiculous amount of money, and went from being ignored as some colonial back water to owning all the damn gold, and as the biggest power broker on the block, it set up the League of Nations and set the basis of international political discussion that continues to this day.

America sat at home for pretty much the entire war. While horrific offensives such as the Somme cost the British, French and Germans just over a million men. The British paid for the Somme in loans from America. The cost of these loans is beyond comprehension. The British went bankrupt. Just take 1917-1918  when the British borrowed 4 Billion US Dollars . . . has anyone any idea what that would be in today's money ? The British have still not repaid the loans of the first world war back to america.

What's a little debt between friends?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

And, that is just the British, spare a thought that the French also ran out of there reserves of Gold, over seas investments etc . . .

Yea, Cui Bono.


Very interesting. But please tell me ( or put a link ) when the Tsar Nikola The Second "told Rotschilds, Warburgs to get lost". ?

P.S. From whom British Empire get such huge loan in WW1 ?
P.P.S. In last post I forgot to tell why British Empire did not allow fall of Istanbul. Because when Orthodox Greeks, Russians and Armenians conquer Istanbul that city will be acclaimed as Third Rome.

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2014, 12:01:11 PM »

Very interesting. But please tell me ( or put a link ) when the Tsar Nikola The Second "told Rotschilds, Warburgs to get lost". ?

P.S. From whom British Empire get such huge loan in WW1 ?
P.P.S. In last post I forgot to tell why British Empire did not allow fall of Istanbul. Because when Orthodox Greeks, Russians and Armenians conquer Istanbul that city will be acclaimed as Third Rome.

The loans came from America.
First the Europeans paid with Gold, and other solid assets.
In the end they just begged to borrow the money as unsecured loans.

Europe went bankrupt, America got rich.


As for the Tsar, I do not have a specific link. Like I read about that years ago. However, if you put in Startpage "Tsar Rothschild" you'll get a lot of results.

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2014, 12:28:03 PM »
Thanks. That we could not heard on "History Channel", BBC, "National Geographic", "Viasat History"...

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2014, 12:48:39 PM »
Well I wrote the above just to shake people up a bit.

Hope I did not upset too many people, but I get fed up with British Empire getting the blame for everything. After all, the illuminati do not believe in countries, so I do not think they are the "British Empire." Also, living in Britain, I can honestly say its overcrowded, expensive, heavy taxes, and pretty bankrupt.


Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2014, 12:54:33 PM »
Well I wrote the above just to shake people up a bit.

Hope I did not upset too many people, but I get fed up with British Empire getting the blame for everything. After all, the illuminati do not believe in countries, so I do not think they are the "British Empire." Also, living in Britain, I can honestly say its overcrowded, expensive, heavy taxes, and pretty bankrupt.

After all, we were allies in 2 World Wars.  ;D

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,907
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2014, 12:55:24 PM »
WWI and WWII are about creating a global society - Destroying diversity and creating a globally moldable conformity ...

Armistice Day 11-11-11 1918 - But in Xmas 1914 there was a real effort to end it early ....

Lord Milner's Second War: The Rhodes-Milner Secret Society;
The Origin of World War I; and the Start of the New World Order Paperback  – January 3, 2013



Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Hardcover  – September 1, 2014
by Gerry Docherty   (Author),    Jim MacGregor (Author)

... how World War I started—not with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but rather 10 years earlier, by power-hungry men whose lies have infiltrated history


http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2014/07/special-series-hidden-history-the-secret-origins-of-the-first-world-war-2565018.html

The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915, has been successfully covered-up for a century.
...
To this day, researchers are denied access to certain First World War documents because the Secret Elite have much to fear from the truth. They thus ensure that we learn only those ‘facts’ that support their version of history. It is worse than deception. They were determined to wipe out all traces that lead back to them, and have taken every possible step to ensure that it would remain exceedingly difficult to unmask their crimes.
...

And they walked thru a sea of blood ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11312702/Queens-Christmas-message-only-reaction-to-ceramic-poppies-was-silence.html


The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh visit the installation 'Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red' at the Tower of London (Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph)
...
The Queen has spoken movingly of her visit to the poppy memorial commemorating those who died in the First World War
...
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh walked through the memorial of red ceramic poppies in the former moat of the Tower of London in October, having insisted on seeing it in person. The installation, comprising 888,246 poppies, one for each British and Colonial death, was intended to mark the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict.

updated link:

http://mises.org/library/merchants-death
http://mises.org/sites/default/files/The%20Merchants%20of%20Death_2.pdf
The Merchants of Death
November 22, 2007•H.C. Engelbrecht•F. C. Hanighen


Here is the archetype of all post–World War I revisionism of a particular variety: the hunt for the people who made the big bucks off the killing machine. The Merchants of Death was, in many ways, the manifesto of a generation of people who swore there would not be and could not be another such war.

But here is the kicker: it was co-authored by the founder of Human Events, the conservative weekly. So this is no left-wing screed against profiteering. It is a careful and subtle, but still passionate, attack on those who would use government to profit themselves at the expense of other people's lives and property.

Here is a sample of the ideological orientation: "The arms industry did not create the war system. On the contrary, the war system created the arms industry.… All constitutions in the world vest the war-making power in the government or in the representatives of the people. The root of the trouble, therefore, goes far deeper than the arms industry. It lies in the prevailing temper of peoples toward nationalism, militarism, and war, in the civilization which forms this temper and prevents any drastic and radical change. Only when this underlying basis of the war system is altered, will war and its concomitant, the arms industry, pass out of existence."

This book is a wonderful example of what Rothbard called the "Old Right" in its best form. The book not only makes the case against the war machine; it provides a scintillating history of war profiteering, one authoritative enough for citation and academic study. One can see how this book had such a powerful effect.

Why re-release this book now? The war profiteers are making money as never before. They are benefiting from conflict as never before. Everything in this book has not only come to pass but as been made worse by a million times. So this treatise is more necessary than ever.

This is the real heritage of the American Right.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

In case someone thinks i'm making this up - WWI Should have ended in 1915-6/7 ! Before the U.S got in the War and before the Bolsheviks from New York started the revolution in Russia. Not to mention all the the millions of people who would not be dead if the war had ended two years sooner. I haven't even gotten into the Belgium Relief fund that kept the war going by feeding the German Army with relief supplies (where Herbert Hoover got his big start)   

https://archive.org/stream/officialcommunic00carn/officialcommunic00carn_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/officialcommunic00carn#page/n6/mode/1up
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Pamphlet No. 23
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS AND SPEECHES RELATING TO PEACE PROPOSALS

1916-1917

PUBLISHED BY THE ENDOWMENT
WASHINGTON. D. C.

1917

PREFATORY NOTE

On December 12, 1916, the Imperial German Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, delivered an address in the Reichstag in which he stated the willingness of the German Empire, under certain conditions,
to consider the question of peace with its enemies
. In the same speech the Chancellor read to the Reichstag the text of a note which the Imperial Government had submitted, through certain neutral Governments,
for consideration by the Entente Powers. An identical note was likewise submitted on the same date, through the same channels, by Germany's allies.

The Entente Powers, by way of reply to these overtures, stated in similar official form the conditions upon which they would consider the question of peace with their enemies. Certain neutral Powers took advantage of these expressions of the respective belligerents to set forth their views as to the international situation.
...

Germany is carrying on a war of defence against her enemies, which
aim at her destruction.
She fights to assure the integrity of her fron-
tiers and the liberty of the German Nation, for the right which she
claims to develop freely her intellectual and economic energies in peace-
ful competition and on an equal footing with other nations. All the
efforts of their enemies are unable to shatter the heroic armies of the
(Teutonic) allies
, which protect the frontiers of their countries,
strengthened by the certainty that the enemy shall never pierce the iron
wall.

Those fighting on the front know that they are supported by the
whole nation, which is inspired by love for its country and is ready
for the greatest sacrifices and determined to defend to the last extremity
the inherited treasure of intellectual and economic work and the social
organization and sacred soil of the country.

Certain of our own strength, but realizing Europe's sad future if
the war continues; seized with pity in the face of the unspeakable
misery of humanity
, the German Empire, in accord with her allies,
solemnly repeats what the Chancellor already has declared, a year ago,
that Germany is ready to give peace to the world by setting before the
whole world the question whether or not it is possible to find a basis
for an understanding.


Since the first day of the Pontifical reign his Holiness the Pope has
unswervingly demonstrated, in the most generous fashion, his solicitude
for the innumerable victims of this war. He has alleviated the suffer-
ings and ameliorated the fate of thousands of men injured by this
catastrophe. Inspired by the exalted ideas of his ministry, his Holiness
has seized every opportunity in the interests of humanity to end so
sanguinary a war.

The Imperial Government is firmly confident that the initiative of the
four powers will find friendly welcome on the part of his Holiness,
and that the work of peace can count upon the precious support of the
Holy See.

...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2014, 01:03:37 PM »
I learned in Primary school that guilt for WW1 is imperialism as last stage of capitalism.  ::) ;D

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2014, 03:01:54 PM »
P.P.S. In last post I forgot to tell why British Empire did not allow fall of Istanbul. Because when Orthodox Greeks, Russians and Armenians conquer Istanbul that city will be acclaimed as Third Rome.

What?

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2014, 03:10:35 PM »
Just to be clear, I didn't blame the British Empire for WW1 here.
But noted that their strategy seemed to be to attack the Ottoman Empire (Gallipoli).

British, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires all partially collapsed as a result of the war.

If the conspiracy was to destroy the worlds empires and reduce the world to nation states... then it was successful.

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2015, 10:15:49 AM »
The thing that I see when I look at the cause for the first world war, is the collapse of the Austrian Empire. The central state had lost the affiliation of the people under its control. The Austrian Empire was comprised of many mixed peoples and these peoples, felt more affiliated to their own kind than than the Emperor and his command structure.
For a long time Austria had been suppressing ideas of nationality within its boarders to maintain control, and at the same time playing the game of playing one group off against another in a bid to divide and rule.
However even though the states main objective was to sever affiliations people had for each other; Hungarian for Hungarian, or Croat for Croat so that only the only point of reference for a member of the Austrian Empire should be the structure of the central state and Emperor, this proved impossible while the people felt a stronger affiliation to their nationality than they did to the Empire.

What I find odd is that most explanations for the first world war blame it on nationalism and they talk about German, Russian, French, British expansionism, but the idea that nationalism could be positive, meaning self determination for Serbs, Croats, or Hungarians is never spoken about. although that is why the first shot of the first world war was aimed at Franz Ferdinand.

For people living now under the EU or USA (rather than Texas, Ohio, etc) that story which is not talked about has I would say a lot to think about in it.   

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2015, 10:26:29 AM »
Who need WW1 ? Austro-Hungarian Empire ( otherwise they crumbled ) and secret societies ( for new ideas and prophets).

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2015, 01:48:40 PM »
My thought to the above is that we are run by psychopaths, Austria's weakness was leapt upon by Russian, and French elites to divide it up to their own advantage, so Austria had to be propped up by Germany for the Prussian aristocracies advantage.
There is no conspiracy in this, because they blatantly admit it. Those in charge can do that because they now differentiate themselves from the old European aristocracies, however when we trace the power structures the same people are in control they just don't flaunt their old family titles.

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2015, 02:52:37 PM »
My thought to the above is that we are run by psychopaths, Austria's weakness was leapt upon by Russian, and French elites to divide it up to their own advantage, so Austria had to be propped up by Germany for the Prussian aristocracies advantage.
There is no conspiracy in this, because they blatantly admit it. Those in charge can do that because they now differentiate themselves from the old European aristocracies, however when we trace the power structures the same people are in control they just don't flaunt their old family titles.

Those are time of national awakening. Austro-Hungarian Empire had in their State: Hungarians,Czechs, Croats, Slovaks, Serbs, Slovenians, Bosnian Muslims...and on the border little democratic Serbia and small Kingdom of Montenegro.
Emperor Franz I had to crush Serbia and Montenegro for exaple to other nations and ethnic groups in Empire ( Austro-Hungarian deal is just someting for not long time ). Anyway, Austro-Hungarian Empire was 3 Christian confession and one muslim ! Serbs are Orthodox Christians, Slovaks are protestants, Czechs,Hungarians,Slovenians and Croats are Romancatholic. This Empire could not exist without war and conquer small Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Montenegro.
After Balkan wars that is settled.
After TWO Balkan wars (1912-1913) Serbs are too tired for any war.That is my opinion.

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2015, 03:27:21 PM »
I would say that is less opinion, than a factual report.

Offline Al Bundy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,448
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2015, 03:33:36 PM »
I would say that is less opinion, than a factual report.

Jonb, what you trying to tell me ? Am I wrong ?

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2015, 06:32:55 PM »
I agree with all you have written on this thread.

But to say it is just opinion implies there is something that could be argued with, what you have stated is therefore not opinion because I could not see anybody coherently being able to say it is other than a statement of fact.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2015, 07:19:53 PM »
Thanks for your opinion, jonb

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2015, 08:44:34 PM »
Yes, what I am talking about is not proven a fact, but it does interest me that in the context of the first world war nationalism is only commonly presented as the vying of large super states.
The form of nations we have now are a relatively resent invention.
Germany is it a nation or an Empire?
Could we say Bavarian or Prussian nationalism were swept away and replaced with a super state called Germany.
What does it mean to be British? Is English, Welsh or Scottish Nationalism counter to that?
I lived in France and even there most people I met were much more devoted to their region than Parisian rule.
The same is very evidently true in Spain with several regions seeking independence, and I am told also in Italy.
The problem is that we do not have words to distinguish a nationalism which could be seen as an expression of a common culture and a nation which could be imposed on several differing cultures.

I know this is mainly an American forum, so it might seem hard to think about what may seem European questions about nation. However I love old films and Hollywood films, The thing I noticed is that in old cowboy films (1930's) the state where the cowboy came from was very important whereas in modern films the cowboy tends to be a generic American.
Does that reflect an America where central control has become all important, and the individual states have lost significance?

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2015, 06:39:31 AM »
Yes, what I am talking about is not proven a fact, but it does interest me that in the context of the first world war nationalism is only commonly presented as the vying of large super states.
The form of nations we have now are a relatively resent invention.
Germany is it a nation or an Empire?
Could we say Bavarian or Prussian nationalism were swept away and replaced with a super state called Germany.
What does it mean to be British? Is English, Welsh or Scottish Nationalism counter to that?
I lived in France and even there most people I met were much more devoted to their region than Parisian rule.
The same is very evidently true in Spain with several regions seeking independence, and I am told also in Italy.
The problem is that we do not have words to distinguish a nationalism which could be seen as an expression of a common culture and a nation which could be imposed on several differing cultures.

I know this is mainly an American forum, so it might seem hard to think about what may seem European questions about nation. However I love old films and Hollywood films, The thing I noticed is that in old cowboy films (1930's) the state where the cowboy came from was very important whereas in modern films the cowboy tends to be a generic American.
Does that reflect an America where central control has become all important, and the individual states have lost significance?

I see this has highly relevant to the superstate empire that is forming now, called the EU. It seems to me that the EU would prefer to be composed of small states, rather than big powerful states, hence they are letting these large 'federal' European states start to unwind. Its mysteriously happening from Catalonia to Scotland. Yet always these nationalists declare they are all in favour of the EU, that they just don't want to be ruled by Paris, Madrid, London etc . . . but its ok to be ruled by Brussels as it is even more distant and uncaring ?

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2015, 07:22:26 AM »
^ There is a lot for me to think about in that post. I have a personal preference to think smaller is better as that can more reflect the individual, but as you point towards if that view of mine only creates more levels of management the structure become less responsive to the individual and much harder to keep in check.
Yes, a lot to think about. Thanks for posting.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2015, 08:02:46 AM »
EG is spot on.

Devolution and Regionalism are the same thing.

We defeated the Regional Assemblies here in the UK but after the Scottish Referendum, Cameron announced he wanted to being them back. Why did he chose that time is there is no connection.

It's an EU/UN policy.

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2015, 08:48:52 AM »
Yes, I have been entirely won over by EG. The more I think about it the more sense comes forth.
If we look at what Scottish Independence was asked for
Not control of the pound although it would remain as Scottish currency. And not control of the armed services although Scotland would still contribute.
Essentially that means Scots would have less control of their lives if they had voted for independence.
There is an agenda to fracture Britian and we can see that fracturing depicted in the last election.
Scotland SNP
Wales Labour/Welsh nationalist
North East England Labour
Most of England Tory
London Labour
If Britain was to fracture along those lines it would create an independent London with indigenous English people as a minority and as such would be very easy for the elite to control just as they wished without reference to history. A London which was not the square mile of the city, but with a population larger than that of Australia, its own ports and airports and strong enough to maintain its own armed forces. And if the fracturing was along the lines of the Scottish vote for independence a London which controlled money and armed forces of surrounding areas that they had no direct authority over.

That does look Very NWO.
 

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2015, 09:51:32 AM »
Even the Cornish Nationalists want EU Membership.

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2015, 11:31:09 AM »
I am jumping about here but this thread to me is looking very much like it gels together.
Originally we we looking at causes of world war one, and that lead  us to Serbia, now it is about the fracturing of Britain.
Balkanisation seem to be the watch word.
I was thinking about Bosnia, the majority of the land at the time of Yugoslavia was held by Serbians and Croats with only a small amount being held by the Muslim population because they tended to live in cities where they had originally been installed by the Turks to administer that part of the Ottoman Empire.
If the land had been divided up fairly there would be a greater Serbia, a larger Croatia and a few independent Muslim towns. However those towns on their own would not have been economically viable so rural Serbs and Croats were forced to live in a more or less invented region called Bosnia so those Muslim cities could have some self determination.
Superficially for many British people the shedding of London and living in a country that seems to more reflect English Scottish, Welsh aspirations must seem attractive, but once severed that becomes a foreign London that can at any time use the president that NATO fought for when Yugoslavia broke up, that the interests of the city overrides all other considerations and London could as some latter stage take back the land leaving a totally disenfranchised British population without any title to the land they have lived on for at least four thousand years.

The divisions that caused WW1 are still very relevant and not just lines on a map.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2015, 04:50:07 PM »
I just see WW1 as the end of empires/imperialism.
And then WW2 add the end of nationalism.

Although Comintern didn't triumph as a result of WW2, a new form of internationalism did under the United Nations.

Actually though The Concert of Europe one hundred years previous was really the beginning of the end of national competition. The rulers agreed on it at that point but the peoples still had to be brought along. Hence, The War To End All Wars, 100 years later.

The Concert of Europe came from Napoleon and he came from the French Revolution, which came from the Illuminati conspiracy to create a New Order, which came from the Enlightenment.

It's tempting to connect it all up like this.

Offline jonb

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: World War One theories
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2015, 02:36:24 AM »
Yes that is what is said by academics, however, the truth is that although the first world war saw the beginning of the end of some old Empires, and the second world war marked the end of British, French, Dutch, Italian, German and Japanese aspirations to hold or Expand their Empires, the Russian and American Empires expanded their influence.
As for Nationalism it is as strong as ever it was.