Why is WW1 considered to have speed up the process of the disintegration

A lot of people turned on their leaders after the shitshow that was WW1

Having a huge war which kills a lot of your people and bankrupts your economy tends to piss off the locals

>>2294422
Because WW1 is the first major war where the majority of the soldiers who fought in were conscripts and not professional soldiers. They were young men who were drafted into service in a conflict that was mainly caused because monarchs couldn't stop dick-fencing all the time and sent to death by oldfag generals who got their knowledge from Napoleon's diaries.

>>2294422
Have you heard of the Russian revolution?

File: B5W9nIA.jpg (222KB, 1800x1095px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1800x1095px

All very good answers Anons, thank you very much.

Is industrialization a good argument too?

>>2294448
Arguably yeah, industrialisation hugely changed the social make-up of nations and moved people into big cities which weren't ready to take in huge numbers


This isn't for WW1 but a guy called Kaplan wrote a really interesting article about West Africa and the movement of people into the big cities and how it's hugely ducking up the nations there, it's very interesting, he predicts a massive social revolution there soon

>>2294448
>Is industrialization a good argument too?
Yes. Mass-production and technological advancement also showed that old tactics were obsolete and treating human lives like lifeless material caused a severe crisis in terms of human morals.

>>2294457
>and treating human lives like lifeless material caused a severe crisis in terms of human morals.
I read that as "human morale" at first and it still works.

Is it safe to say that the second industrial revolution made things easier for people and gave more room for new thoughts and ideas to flourish?

File: 1476673823880.png (166KB, 303x336px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 303x336px

>>2294442
>Because WW1 is the first major war where the majority of the soldiers who fought in were conscripts and not professional soldiers.

What the fuck are you on about?

Do you not know what the Levee en masse was?

>>2296818
hes actually right from a british point of view, conscription for the army wasnt a thing before

>>2297629
>france had conscription
>germany had conscription
>austria had conscription
>russia had conscription
>italy has conscription
>britain didn't have conscription until then
>also happens to be the country with the least societal upheavals

>>2297974
Anglo-Saxon common law best tradition desu.

>>2296818
>>2297629
>>2297974

It's not that armies did or didn't have levies. It's that it was the first war where the old conscription style ran into the new style of industrialized warfare and military leaders weren't ready for it. That's why hundreds of thousands of young men died in some of the early battles.

>>2294553
Do your own homework you faggot.