With it being the centenary of the First World War, I've

>>2436629
Yes, yes it is. I might even say that it's the dominant narrative at present.

All of modern western history is a result of the Treaty of Westphalia

>>2436637
History is just one long sequence of events.

File: images (1).jpg (40KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 443x332px

>>2436700
Woah

>>2436629
>The war started in 1917
>American education

It's all fake.

It never happened.

You are a Boltzmann brain that will phase out of existence in the next fifteen minutes.

File: 1R7XXkJ.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>2436748

File: 1477075189920.jpg (143KB, 1002x759px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1002x759px

>>2436748
This

If you read about WWI then you also need to consider its origins stemming from the end of the Franco-Prussian War. This war resulted in the creation of the modern, unified German state.

If you read about the Franco-Prussian War then you also need to study the Austro-Prussian, Crimean and Boer wars, not to mention Unification of Italy, fall of the Hapsburgs and creation of the wartime journalism which started in England. These are just some starting points.

WWII was indeed destined to happen from some effects of WWI, however there is a long list of events that you need to consider before you can pinpoint a single reason for either of the World Wars to start.

t. Burger History Fan

Spot on and sadly all those unfinished/ unavenged circumstances still need play out in the third part of the trilogy, which is gonna suck.

>>2436629
>The second world war was a direct consequence of the treaty itself by the treatment of Germany after the war.
I love this meme!

>>2437228
I mean, it's true.

WW1 laid the foundation for both the rise of fascism and the Great Depression which both directly lead to WW2.

>>2437249
It didn't. The territory the Germans lost they were a minority in already. The reparations they owed were light compared to wars of the previous century, and even after they stopped paying it in the 20's the allies raised very little voice of complaint. Nationalist/Fascist movements were already starting to prop up by the time the war had started. The treaty was a scapegoat for Hitler to point at to ignore the real problems affecting the country.

>>2437264
>Fascist movements were already starting to prop up by the time the war had started
This is utterly untrue. Fascism started in Italy and was a direct result of their involvement in WW1. It was the grievances with Italy's slim pickings in the treaty as well as a sputtering economy from distorted markets caused by wartime spending as well as a resentment against traditional liberal government for being perceived as being unable solve these crises that spawned fascism. Fascism would not exist without WW1.

The Great Depression as well can be traced back to the dislocated global economy in the wake of WW1. Global trade was down, wartime spending ballooned budgets and distorted markets. The global money markets in the interwar years was a merry-go-round of American loans being paid to Germany to pay down its debts to Britain & France who in turn used that money to pay down their own American loans. This unstable arrangement was bucked by the stock market crash and the subsequent drying up of American loans which wrecked havoc on Germany's economy, the world's second largest, and DIRECTLY lead to global economic downturn.

>>2437264
The treaty of Versailles is one of the most insulting documents ever written for a German.

They were blamed for the entire war, the country was still starving sure to the blockade and the territory lost was actual very important industrial centres of Germany. The nationalist of the country felt cheated by the whole affair, most importantly were the ones who eventually started the Nazi movement and used the pent up hate the Germans had for the former entente countries to grow their cause.

>>2436629
>the treatment of Germany after the war.
When will this stupid meme end? Versailles wasn't harsh, or actually enforced for that matter.

>>2437264
hi Nigel
kindly fuck the hell off from here

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1058x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1058x485px

>>2438516
>the territory lost was actual very important industrial centres of Germany.
The only one that was industrially important was Alsace, a territory they had stolen a few decades earlier

>The nationalist of the country felt cheated by the whole affair
Maybe they shouldn't have started and lost a major war then

>They were blamed for the entire war
They war blamed for the material damages caused in France and Belgium (which is true) and for (alongside Austria who is mentioned too) starting a war of aggression (which is also true)
Here's the famous clause naziboos whine about

>"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

Look at pic related and tell me it isnt the truth
Germany is an autistic country, but even them should understand the consequences of their actions

>>2436629
>At this point I am beginning to realize that the reason the world is so fucked up in so many places today can stem from this war in particular and how it ended.

>Make a thread about something so blatantly obvious that historians have been repeating it for decades now and is considered common knowledge among the majority of academic circles
>Still get a load of serious replies

The history part of /his/ was a mistake.

>>2439243
But that's just the anglo narrartive with the usual deflection from their own role and determination to get rid of a rival. They expected the war would be over within three months.
Next lie you'll tell is that there was an obligation towards Belgium which is bullshit. Asquith himself stated before the House of Commons on August 3rd 1914 that there was NO obligation towards Belgium and that they would have to decide if they wanted war or not. this of course wasn't even put through the House anymore. War was declared. THIS is the bit that made the conflict a World War. Thus Germany being solely at fault is merely propaganda.

>>2439498
You're the one getting focused on Anglo viewpoint, huge faggot
Austria had already attacked Serbia and Germany had already attacked Russia, France and Belgium
No one cares about the involvement or not of your precious United Shitdom, it was already a world war before that, and one started by the Central Powers

File: IMG_7808.png (1MB, 956x1349px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 956x1349px

Should I start my learning on the First World War by looking at the origins first, or should I read an overrarching narrative? Any reccomendations on either?

>>2439498
>THIS is the bit that made the conflict a World War.
Yes, because a war without Britain, no matter how large or important, is nothing without Britain, right?

That said, you do have a point.

>>2439498
Russia spawned over half of Asia, France had colonies on every continent and Belgium had Congo
It was already a world war before Britain involvement

How did Serbian nationalism become completely disconected from reality? Like, there are always batshit nationalists, but the Serbs seemed to turn it up to 11.

>>2437264
>Retard spotted

>>2439513
should decide how you want to learn it first. overviews have the advantage of hindsight which is fine.
some people think you have to trace events back to the roman empire circa 100ad (or earlier) which is also fine.

imo the problem with studying history is that it is as never ending as you want it to be. either ww2 started with the treaty of versailles or it started with the colonization of the americas or it started with the romans ectect.

imo you should learn as much as you can about whatever you want. just go into it knowing you have either ww1 started with some dude in serbia getting shot or the cold war was the result of plato saying some shit.

>>2439513
Margerette Mcmillian's "the war that ended peace" is pretty good intro.

She's a Wilson-boo and also loves socialists like Jaun Jaures but she does give a pretty good background into the 50 years before the war in

Germany
GB
France
Austria-Hungary
Russia
Ottomans
Italy

She also goes a little too much into stuff that was popular in literature at the time.

I also liked

A world Undone by GJ Meyer as a good intro the war. He doesn't describe the war by theater but rather chronologically which is nice because it helps relate events to each other from the high command's point of view though I think if you wanted to go in depth its better to do it by theater.

He does a good job though.

Margeret Macmillon also wrote a book on the versailles treaty called Paris 1919 which is pretty good but again sucking Wilson's cock and usually favors socialists.

I get that nobody likes Germans or Wilhelm but she half heartedly defends them or their point of view but in general writes from the perspective they were to blame for everything.