How did the British manage to turn a few inbred hicks throwing

File: he strikes when they all sip their tea.jpg (22KB, 490x313px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 490x313px

They went full Germany

>>1841386
>a war against almost every major power in Europe?

Come on now Bribong, don't exaggerate
France was butthurt at Britain for the French and Indian War, and Spain was France's bitch since the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, so they followed them (kinda like Britain followed the US in Iraq in 2003).

These are the only two major european powers involved
Austria, Prussia and Russia remained out of it

>>1841386
>>1841389
The turkposter is actually not far wrong for once.

The American war of independence (which is I assume what you're referencing), went the way it did for the similar reasons to why the Triple Entente formed, in that Spain and France were worried about Britain's growing global trade hegemony (plus as the anon above pointed out, they wanted revenge for the seven years war), and the Netherlands wanted a concessions along those lines as well. So when the thirteen colonies began a revolt, Spain and France saw the perfect opportunity to try and clip Britain's wings, and take a huge chunk of their colonies (plus Spain REALLY wanted Gibraltar back), and the Netherlands just wanted Britain to stop bullying their trade (Britain was confiscating dutch ships in the middle of the English channel, in the middle of the war, so they pretty much earned this one).

The Triple Entente of course, was formed because France, Russia and Britain were concerned about Germany's growing strength, and WW1 provided them an opportunity to try and limit Germany's growth. Of course they were more successful than France, Spain and the Netherlands, who, while they managed to force Britain to acknowledge the independence of the thirteen colonies, failed to make any other significant gains, and bankrupted themselves in the process (for France it was what caused the financial disaster to end all disasters, that got them a revolution).

>>1841686
You have never read a book about causes of ww1. Not once.

>>1841694
>You have never read a book about causes of ww1. Not once.

Ok, please tell me that the Triple Entente wasn't formed because the three powers were concerned about German military and industrial expansion.

Go on.

>>1841664
And the Dutch. Netherlands + Spain + France = every naval power in europe minus Portugal

>>1841739
The Dutch didnt take part in military actions
They just gave a limited financial support

>>1841694
>Says something is wrong
>Don't give any reason why
>Insults the other poster

>>1841747
Still shows an immense fuck uppery in British diplomacy

>>1841698
It was one of the reasons, yes, but not the only one and industrial is jot the work you're looking for. The franco-russian had plenty of reasons to exist. Of course germany working the ottomans was an obvious concern for russia, but the balkans are always put aside and the dual monarchy shit in bosnia and herzegovina plus the recently lost was in the east was reason enough to look for that ally.
France of course wants, among other things, take back what was taken from them.
The third and last ally had the more reasons of all to look for an ally. Salisbury and the splendid isolation were no more. They tried with germany but chamberlain's speech in edimburg and bülow's response, plus the stupid remark wilhelm made about the boer war took care of that fast enough. Japan was a temporary release but negotiations with russia made the idea of the triple entente as opposition to the triple alliance juicy as my cock.
If anything, it was wilhelm's mouth again with his talk about imperialism what made a ring bell, but not the cause at all.

Don't just say "they feared germany so they formed an alliance". Next you're going to say wwi was the kaiser's fault.

>>1841694
As a history teacher i fail to see anything wrong with that post, please enlighten me.

>>1841759
Also typos because the cell keyboard is small

>>1841759
You're such a pedantic fuck that you don't even realize how irrelevant the information you've provided which can't be analyzed out of >>1841686 is. You admit that the other person was right about one aspect of his claim, the only aspect relevant to your reply, and then ramble on about unrelated things.
This isn't a WW1 thread, the other poster was noting one parallel between the anti-Anglo forces in the American War of Independence and one reason the TE existed. He wasn't saying they were similar beyond that.

>>1841769
Im the greatest

File: 1474179668964.jpg (55KB, 790x602px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 790x602px

>>1841773
iktf

>>1841759
>>franco-russian had plenty of reasons to exists

Yes, but crimea was a thing. Thats why the french were alone in the franco-prussian war. After it the french started to get closer to the russian but they were still bitter about crimea, then the ruso-turk war happened and the germans formed the dual alliance with austria; that was the incenive Russia needed to form the franco-russian alliance. So it was the fear of germany.

That doesnt mean germany was at fault or anything related, trying to blame someone is childish and is usually a symptom of a lack of real interest in history.

>>1841779
That's why I say it's bad practice to just say that it was fear of germany what made the triple entente a possibility. That division in two blocks is one of the keys to wwi and the pieces falling in place without most of the decision makers noticing what's about to happen is what makes it so fascinating to study. There's no single reason why the entente was formed.

Real good job talking about the American revolution friends.

>>1841789
Yesterday i had to teach a class just about that and it was a pleasure to research. Both blocks were completly unexpected, the english and the french hated each other, the russians hated the french (crimea), the austrian hated the germans (prussia-austrian war), the italians hated the austrians (first and second war of italian independence).

Its an amazing time period to read about if you are into geopolitics.

>>1841854
And britiain. Nobody loves britain. And the dual monarchy, the two balkan wars and russia. If you're interested I can recommend the sleepwalkers by christopher clark as a starting point. It's a shame that most works don't give pan-slavism the attention it deserves and this is an accessible book to counter that.

File: twt.jpg (10KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 229x220px

>>1841817
you're welcome

>>1841386
When you are very powerful other countries look for any opportunity to take you down. Also, once they smell blood in the water countries tend to gang on.

>>1841939
But Britain wasnt a very powerful country
Then again, hardly anyone "ganged up" on them in the US revolution
It was just France and its satellite Spain vs Britain
If you want really unfair wars waged against an overly powerful nation, look at

-War of Devolution
-Nine Years War
-War of Spanish Succession
-French Revolutionary Wars
-Napoleonic Wars
-WW1
-WW2