The Chain of Events Leading to The Great War

[Angwen]

In 8th grade I had to take a test on WWI and we had to list the events orally to Mr.Obot. I aced it naturally.My poor friend Kushbo had to retake it 10 times!This is hard to do on type.

(1)Archduke Assassinated by Serbians
a.Austria Declares war on Serbia
b.Russia sides with Serbia
c.Germany declares war on Russia and France

(2)Invasion of Holland
a.England declares war on Germany
b.America declares neutrality
c.A ship is sunk(it actually had military personal)
d.Zimmermann Telegram(Mexico invading us!Scary!)
e.Treaty of Brest-Livosk(in my history book,there was a nice picture of Lenin and red)

(3)America Enters War
a.Treaty of Versailles
b.American Isolationist Policies(or why I don't like Reps)
c.Europe wants revenge
e.Germany suffers
f.Communism in Russia(Mr.Obot still thinks Russia is a communist nation so I don't know if this is correct.)

[David_Pritchard]

In 8th grade I had to take a test on WWII and we had to list the events orally to Mr.Obot. I aced it naturally.My poor friend Kushbo had to retake it 10 times!This is hard to do on type.

(1)Archduke Assasinated by Serbians
a.Austria Declares war on Serbia
b.Russia sides with Serbia
c.Germany declares war on Russia and France

(2)Invasion of Holland
a.England declares war on Germany
b.America declares neutrality
c.A ship is sunk(it actually had military personal)
d.Zimmermann Telegram(Mexico invading us!Scary!)
e.Treaty of Brest-Livosk(in my history book,there was a nice picture of Lenin and red)

(3)America Enters War
a.Treaty of Versailles
b.American Isolationist Policies(or why I don't like Reps)
c.Europe wants revenge
e.Germany suffers
f.Communism in Russia(Mr.Obot still thinks Russia is a communist nation so I don't know if this is correct.)

Some corrections:

Belgium not Holland

A different order:

America Enters War(April 1917)
Treaty of Brest-Livosk(March 1918)
Europe wants revenge
Treaty of Versailles
American Isolationist Policies
Germany suffers
Communism in Russia

David

[TampaBay]

I have read more than I care to admitt on the Paris Peace Conference (primarily researching Marie of Romania) resulting after WWI.  The one thing that stikres me and peaks my interest is the absence of any Russian Represenatives.  Does any one have any information or imput  or tidbits of information regarding Russia'a role (if any) at the Paris Peace Conference?

TampaBay

[Robert_Hall]

Why do you think Russia would have had a place there ?The country had undergone a violent revolution, backed out of the grand alliance and ceded to Germany. It was it the midst of a vicious civil war, reforming the political landscape against all odds at the same time. Just "WHO" could have been sent to represent Russia? For that matter- WHICH Russia would anyone represent ? Most of the countries at that "Peace Conference" had not even recognized the governemnt of Russia.
I think they [Moscow] might have have "observers" but no one took them seriously. The same with some Imperialists [I may be wrong but I think Felix mentions something about that].
Your turn, cheers.

[TampaBay]

Why do you think Russia would have had a place there ?The country had undergone a violent revolution, backed out of the grand alliance and ceded to Germany. It was it the midst of a vicious civil war, reforming the political landscape against all odds at the same time. Just "WHO" could have been sent to represent Russia? For that matter- WHICH Russia would anyone represent ? Most of the countries at that "Peace Conference" had not even recognized the governemnt of Russia.
I think they [Moscow] might have have "observers" but no one took them seriously. The same with some Imperialists [I may be wrong but I think Felix mentions something about that].
Your turn, cheers.

Sir Robert, Lord Hall,

That is just my questions.  Russia was on the "winning side" during WWI.  You would think someone woud have been in Paris representing the Russian governement or "claiming" to represent the Russian Government.

It is amazing no one seemed to see Communism for what it really was.

TampaBay

[Angwen]

Russia may have been on the winning side,but they lost the most men.The war became throughly unpopular and is one of the reasons NicholasII was forced to abdicate.

As for Russia not being involved,do you think they were wanted there?They had betrayed the the alliance with England and France,and had fought a lengthy war with Germany.

What I don't understand is that the Russian negotiators signed the Treat of Brest-Livosk without looking at it.

[Robert_Hall]

The issue in both cases is that "Communism" is an ideal.  As an ideal, it is generous, popular and democratic.  I do not think even Lenin knew where he was going with this "ideal". Obviously it failed, or rather never had a chance of succeding because of the many circumstances of history [human failings being probably the most glaring]. How can anyone argue against an "ideal" that overthrows an autocratic, repressive regime,  ends an unpopular hostile involement [the war] and promises re-distridution of the wealth ? The fact that it did none of that was yet to be proven.

The treaty of Brest-Litvosk was urgently needed at any price. The new regime promised to end the war [or at least Russia's invlovement in it] and the treaty did just that. Like any stop-gap measure, it achieved the immeadiate goal and they would deal with the consequences later.
Those arte my thoughts on the matter.
Cheers !

[Alixz]

Russia was not on the winning side.

After the Treaty of Brest Litvosk, they were on neither side, except perhaps they now had released troops from the Eastern front to fight for the Central Powers on the Western Front.

With the revolution and civil was going on, who whould be available to represent them?

I did mention in another thread that had Lenin lived longer, perphaps his vision of a communist state would have been different than what Stalin had.

Communisn is a utopian concept, and as yet there has been no uptopia on this planet.  Too many people to mess it up.

[Angwen]

As for communism, most communists would argue that the states that have been subjected to the Marxist believes are Socialist.
The rulers are the requiremental Dictator of Proletrait or DOP by Lennist-Marxists.

But hey, let's not get into all that now. I just came from revolutionary forum.

[Alixz]

I thought I would "bump" this up as I think it still has "legs".

Russia, no longer existed after the Treaty of Brest Litvosk and so would not be sending representatives to the Peace Conference.  Russia didn't "win" anything out of WWI.  After the Treaty of Brest Litvosk, they lost a great deal of land and of course had already lost way too many soldiers.

The Soviets had yet to be recognized by  L' entente or winning side and so would not be invited to the Peace Conference.  They might have sent interested observers, but I don't think Lenin had enough control over his new domain to worry about that.

There was a civil war beginning to rage all through Russia since 1918 and it was still going on in 1919.

The Peace Conference attendees were too interested in dividing up the "spoils of war" to take any time to worry about the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  They left that for another day, unfortunately.

I mentioned in another thread that Ho Chi Min served as a waiter at the conference and tried very hard to get to talk to some of the delegates about the French occupation of Viet Nam.  Perhaps had they even taken the time out from congratulating themselves on trouncing the "Hun", they might have avoided the Viet Nam war some 50 years later.

The Peace Conference contained so many posibilities of furture world peace that were ignored by those who were only concerned with their own selfish share of the spoils.  The humiliation of Germany led to WWII.  The British occupation and manipulation of the Middle East and its oil and the creation of Kuwait led to the Gulf War.

God these men thought they were omnipotent and that they knew it all.  Too bad they can't see how their selfishness and pride and dreams of retribution and of course their lock on their places in the history books made them blind to what "chain of events" they were forging.

[Lyss]

As I'm writing my thesis on the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, some points:
The main concern of the Lenin's government was to stay in power. To achieve that it had to fulfill the two things the Rusian people were begging for for the past 4 years: to end the war and to give land to the people (something they were begging for for a much longer time than 4 years). This the provisional government did not do and you could see the result.
That was reason one for the peace treaty.
Reason two was that the Germans had talked it over with Lenin in Switzerland and because of his promise for this peace (so the Entente could move it's troops to the west front were they were experiencing many difficulties) the Germans smuggled Lenin to Petrograd.
The reason why the treaty was singed so rapidly with so many losts for Russia was because 1) the Ukraine had proclaimed itself independent with the help of Germany and German troops were stationed thereto protect the new formed country from the Russian troops who would want it back 2) the Germans had invaded Russia and were bombing Petrograd : they wanted to remove Lenin and put someone else in charge (a puppet who would make Ruia Germans colony). 3) Lenin's goverment was on the bridge of collapse: inside the to fractions were fighting one and other and other parties (like the soc-dem) were gaining weight 4) the civil war

The situation was getting out of hand for Lenin and Trotsky, they had to act quickly so they agreed on the German terms. Now they coul focus them on the chaos in their own country.

[Alixz]

L'entente was France, England, Russia and all of the minor powers who sided with them.

Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the powers who sided with them.

Germany wanted the treaty signed as soon as possible to relieve its troops on the Eastern Front and be
able to send them to the Western Front where the Americans were now intervening.

The absolute double nature and double cross of the Kaiser and his government was not expected in the era of "death before dishonor".  Also, nationalisn outweighed familial ties.  For some reason the nature of the family relationships between all of the waring powers made no difference.  Victoria and especially Albert along with their daughter Princess Victoria (the Empress Frederick of Germany) and her husband Frederick III truly thought that a progressive conservative government in all of the related nations would keep a long and lasting peace in Europe.  None of them, however, had even imagined that their grandson and son, Kaiser Wilhelm II would be as psychologically unstable and meglomaniacal as he was.

Lenin, as stated above, needed to give the Russian people what they wanted which was and end to conflict and land.  Lenin did not have absolute control in the beginning of his "great social expreiment" in Marxism or Communism.  He needed the troops home from the Eastern Front to reinforce his position in power by strength of men.

So the treaty of Brest Litvosk was signed at any cost.

[Lyss]

central powers, you're completely right. How stupid of me to mix them up. I guess those things happend when you're in the middle of your exams: you make the most stupid mistakes. I just had my "history of international politics" exam. A friend of mine got so nervous that she placed the Prague Spring in Poland.

Now back to Russia. The Entente Cordiale was a major treaty and breaking it off by a very (strategicaly) important allie was considered treason. So Russia couldn't possibly take part in the proceedings to the treaty of Versailles.

If I look at the major treaties: Vienna, Versailles, Potsdam, Yalta, I always come across the same pattern. Big countries  decide for the world what they will do with other countries, not letting them take part in the conversations, not even asking them if they agree. For me, every treaty was a disaster.

[Alixz]

Lyss

My posting was meant only to clarify for others who might not know, not to correct you.  

Welcome to the thread! I am sure with your research in to the Treay of Brest Litvosk, we will have a great resource.

Way off topic -Have you ever read a science fiction book called The City and the Stars by Robert Heinlein?

One of the two remaining cities on earth in his story is a peaceful valley named Lyss.

Back to the various treaties, you are so right.  Even the division of Germany after WWII was a show of the winners deciding for the losers.  "To the winner belongs the spoils"  I guess they take that very seriously.  Again another humiliation for the Germans.  When I was in school I thought about the time line of the 20th century and truly thought that a general world war would occur every 20.

1914 (assination of Franz Ferdinand) to 1918   -  1939 (invasion of Poland) to 1945  of course in the 1960s we were already engaged in Viet Nam and had already been through a "Police Action" in Korea.  Then there was 1980 with Afghanistan and Iran, and of course 1991 with The Gulf War.  So while they weren't really "world wars" there was always some war somewhere.

But as I said before because this thread deals with the "chain of events" leading to the very first of these wars called "The War to End all Wars" and then to the treaty that ended it and divided up the spoils, the conference attendees were thinking anally.

[Lyss]

But as I said before because this thread deals with the "chain of events" leading to the very first of these wars called "The War to End all Wars" and then to the treaty that ended it and divided up the spoils, the conference attendees were thinking anally.

But France knew t wasn't the war to end all wars. They were expecting a revenge from Germany. That's why their demands were so high. France wanted the Germans to be angry and to start a war eventualy.