Is it true that World War 1 started because some guy called Archie Duke...?

Question

.. shot an Ostrich because he was hungry?

Answer 1

Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it
was too much effort *not* to have a war.

You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs
developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the
Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two
vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way
there could never be a war.

But, you see there was a tiny flaw in the plan: it was bollocks.

Ooh, looks like John B can't take a joke! It's satirical John, get the hell over it and get a life. If you can't laugh about something what can you do?

Answer 2

The immediate cause was the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist. However the assassination is also widely agreed to have been merely the overt cause, where numerous hidden and implicit factors were contributing —central of these being the drives and interests of various competing nationalist elements.

Answer 3

No. WW1 was the result of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand the heir to the Austrian throne, by a man wanting independance for an area of Austria/Hungary. Austria supported by Germany attacked Serbia (where I believe this man came from), and the rest of Europe and the world leapt on the defence to quell any further invasions.

Answer 4

one difficulty to save in concepts is that there develop into no actual precedent for international warfare a million (trench warfare had got here about contained in the Crimea and American civil wars, yet not on the size of the western the front in WW1). Generals of the era might want to have all started their careers it the low intensity, colonial conflicts of the Victorian era, (Sudan, Northwest frontier, Boxer rebel and so on). some even had careers that went as some distance again because the Crimean warfare. those conflicts were marked by employing battles extra equivalent to the difficulty in Afghanistan now (small scale fireplace fights and the occasional large pitched conflict), such quite some Generals in basic terms weren't prepared for what observed. the first couple of months of the warfare develop into surely what the generals expected, there develop right into a era of fluid warfare with large advances and retreats punctuated by employing preserving movements. finally it in basic terms degenerated right into a warfare of attrition, efficiently a large siege- you dig in and take a seat tight and desire they conflict through too many casualties to proceed before you do. some were stuck of their approaches, and nonetheless used old approaches, even as some others were extra experimental of their frame of mind and stepped forward new approaches and techniques. in basic terms as there is an palms race, there's a approaches race- New guns and approaches require new approaches and guns to triumph over etc. a number of the approaches employed contained in the trenches would not were out of position contained in the middle a even as- digging tunnels to undermine the enemy's positions (or contained related to the Somme, detonate huge mines). each person who says the Generals couldn't run a defense force do not recognize what the hell they are on about. you won't be able to mobilise that many adult men and then feed, dress and provide them, day in holiday for 4 years in case you haven't any theory a thanks to run a defense force. in case you look at what number shells were fired in the course of the Somme, and then imagine about the logistics of having those shells and guns from the factories to the front (without letting the Germans recognize an offensive develop into comming) is a masterclass of performance and making plans.

Answer 5

Archer, the first world war had nothing to do with Germanys Imperial ambitions. The war was due to Europes archaic systems of alliances. A small, reigonal war quickly developed into a mass bloodshed because every country, including us in Britain and the French, had paranoid views of each other and felt bound to either keep the balance of power in check, or to stop other countries invading them.


If you want to 'blame' someone for the war, i could say my country, Britain, turned it into a global conflict. If we hadn't have got involved, the Empire, and the worlds subsequent colonies, would not have descended on Europe.

Answer 6

Yes! He was inspired by listening to Franz Ferdinand, and apparently the ostrich was a has-been nationalist.

Answer 7

What does it matter, wars are usually started for ludicrous reasons anyway, and the people with money send your normal joe's into combat and usually fatal combat.

Do you think the Prime Minister, or President, or whatever they are called, would start a war if they themselves had to go into military combat, on the front line, to defend their country?

Course they wouldn't, they are just wankers getting your normal joe's to do the job for them.

Answer 8

Well the assasination of the archduke was the story of what kicked off the start of overt aggressions in WWI.

Answer 9

If it was not for the soldiers who gave their lives in ww1 people like you would not have the freedom to be so fooking stupid, grow up!, they really died to ensure our freedom, it was not a game for fooks sake, you could even begin to understand the harsh realities of war pal.
I visited one of the war graveyards where our soldiers are buried in Arras, France, it was a very moving experience, the number of 18yr olds buried there brought a tear to my eye.
As for you, your just a tw*t, report me if you want, I don't give a sh*t about you.

Answer 10

Sorry, I almost spit up my iced tea on my keyboard. It was because of the assasination of the ArchDuke Ferdinand of Hungary and his wife.