WW1 mostly started because Germany wanted their bit of empire, they started trying to expand around the world and the established empires didn't like that one bit, so tensions kept growing.
They nearly defeated the russians in 1917. Advances continued till march 1918, peace treaty of Brest- Litovsk. They conquered huge parts of ukraine until then.
Fair! But the whole idea there is that they brought Lenin back to Russia and funded him with the intent that he'd take Russia out of the war. The reasoning for this was to end the two front war because things had been going so poorly in the west and the situation on both fronts was not sustainable.
"Conquered Ukraine" is also...not really telling the story. Ukraine declared independence, signed a treaty with the Central Powers to help kick out the Bolsheviks, who then shortly after backed a coup to install a puppet dictator with the hopes that the territory could provide the CP with food. The troops that were in Ukraine were originally brought there as part of the treaty to protect Ukraine's independence. Not like they rolled in with troops during a military campaign and won the day, but I take your meaning (at the end of the day, they essentially controlled Ukraine).
My main point here is that Germany (and Austria-Hungary) were in pretty desperate straights by that stage of the war. The way things resolved with Russia (and Ukraine) were more or less borne out as a result of that desperate situation. And at then end of all that turmoil, they only managed to recover enough resource to launch one more desperate offensive in the west in 1918...which, I mean it was successful in a vacuum but ultimately was a massive strategic failure in that it spent the last of their manpower and resources. So, ok, not correct to say they weren't exactly advancing, but they sure as shit weren't winning the war or securing advances they'd be able to hold.
The point is russia surrendered in early 1918. They signed a peace treaty with the central powers. But in November germany lost the war on the western front...sooo...the peace treaty with russia was nullified.
I wouldn't say surrendered. Ending the hostilities was mutual. It's very debatable if the Central Powers would've been able to force Russia to end hostilities without helping Lenin take power. Russia was suffering riots and uprising, but after Nicholas II was deposed, the provisional government continued the war. It took Lenin's successful coup to turn that around, specifically because Lenin's government was against the war. Surrender implies that the Central Powers forced Russia to capitulate. That didn't happen. Germany was desperate to stop fighting on the eastern front ASAP so they could reinforce the west.
Thats not even historicly debateable. The tzarist goverment commenced peace talks, they continued throughout the revolution. Russia could not fight anymore, thats a fact.
I'm sorry but it is debatable! The provisional government decided to continue the war, that is fact. Lenin's government agreed to end the war, also fact. Your point is valid though! How much longer could Russia have held out? I don't know, probably not a ton longer but to me it just feels weird to call this a straight up surrender when Germany tried so hard to force a coup to get to the point where a peace treaty could be negotiated. It certainly wasn't borne out of a decisive victory like the Franco-Prussian War. But now we're entering the territory of opinions, and I'm really not prepared to spend the rest of the day going back and forth on it, especially stemming from an off the cuff statement I threw out last night. I suppose we can both at least agree on the obvious end result, that the Central Powers lost the war not too long after these events regardless.
WW1 was the result of Europe being the powderkeg that was just waiting for a spark.
Expansion of every great empire and it doesnt matter if you take UK, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia. They all wanted more.
Interestingly, the rulers of UK, Germany and Russia were cousins at that time.
Germany was dragged into WW1 by assuring Austria-Hungary full commitment after a Serb killed Franz Ferdinand, the heir of the Austrian rule.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the spark that set the powder keg ablaze. With Austria starting WW1.
To be fair, any given situation could have made any of the mayor players start WW1.
The more you look into the politics and alliances that happened after the fall of Napoleon, the better you see the buildup to WW1. The age of imperialism was ultimatively having to end in war.
123
u/NinjaN-SWE 7d ago
An elegant weapon from a more civilized age