January 26

[ferball]

Do you dispute it?

Describe why it started and I'll tell you what I think about that.

 

[ferball]

For us, the Great War is finito. A war which would have been a damn sight simpler if we'd just stayed in England and shot 50,000 of our men a week!

Yeah, such a waste...

 

[Vindicater]

Growing up ANZAC Day never had to be explained or promoted because everyone's grandparents were "in the war" and families were still dealing with the consequences of that.

Yep. My grandpa was in the war and I remember going with him to Dawn service multiple times as a younger kid.

 

[Forward Press]

The Aboriginal people I have spoken to equates to representatives of tens of thousands of Aboriginals.

Why even bother? Known pest you are responding to.

The goal posts will be moved to impossible to satisfy criteria and you will waste time on someone who does not engage in good faith.

 

[Roylion]

Describe why it started and I'll tell you what I think about that.

You made the claim about why it started. Forward Press has since outlined some reasons it broke out that are more accurate. Go back and read that.

Or read the following, which is a work I've had in my collection for many years.



Tell me how the outbreak of World War I was caused by "a ruling class family feud."

 

[ferball]

Roylion may be typing up an essay right now but at high school level it's taught that it's a combination of factors - the increasingly complex set of bilateral alliances between European powers (which meant just one country being attacked could draw in every other country), increasing militarisation as technology went from swords to bullets, and nationalistic and imperialistic ideas taking hold whipping the population of the powers into a frenzy. The assassination was the tipping point indeed and many argue that WW1 would have happened anyway with another trigger event if not for Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

So essentially a family feud between Europe's ruling class.

You can bang on about details all you like but the ruling class of Europe at the time were related, had competing empires and as some of those empires (which had related royal families essentially leading them via constitutional monarhies and privileged upper houses or some other collection of inbred artistocratic deviants,) grew and began to compete, tensions grew with them.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Roylion may be typing up an essay right now but at high school level it's taught that it's a combination of factors - the increasingly complex set of bilateral alliances between European powers (which meant just one country being attacked could draw in every other country), increasing militarisation as technology went from swords to bullets, and nationalistic and imperialistic ideas taking hold whipping the population of the powers into a frenzy. The assassination was the tipping point indeed and many argue that WW1 would have happened anyway with another trigger event if not for Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Sounds like every game of Sid Meier's Civilization III that I have ever played

 

[Forward Press]

Sounds like every game of Sid Meier's Civilization III that I have ever played

For you, the day that Gandhi launched nukes at your cities was the greatest day of your life.

For me, it was Tuesday.

 

[Roylion]

So essentially a family feud between Europe's ruling class.

It wasn't caused by a family feud. As a constitutional monarch, for example, George V had very little say whether Britain went to war or what Britain's foreign policy was. Since the 1950s, historians have increasingly portrayed Wilhelm II of Germany as having very little control over Germany's foreign policy. Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm were long standing friends, as were George V and Nicholas II. George V and Nicholas II were both in Berlin for the wedding of Wilhelm's daughter Princess Victoria Louise in May 1913, fifteen months before the war broke out

You can bang on about details all you like but the ruling class of Europe at the time were related,

So what.

had competing empires and as some of those empires (which had related royal families essentially leading them via constitutional monarhies and privileged upper houses or some other collection of inbred artistocratic deviants,) grew and began to compete, tensions grew with them.

That doesn't mean that the cause of World War I was a "family feud." No reputable historian argues that. A combination of militarism, imperialism and nationalism were the causes.

 

[eddiesmith]

The good old 'well if you want to change society why are you participating in it' has been trotted out yet again. You managed to also work in the classic 'un-Australian' type of argument too which is difficult to dispute because everyone has different ideas of what Australia is or should be, so kudos.

By this logic, any protest against government can be dismissed and any wish for Australia to change can be shut down as 'un-Australian'. Are you an authoritarian, mate?

Why not? For years a few posters on this board have said anyone who opposes the Premier of Victoria hates Victoria and all Victorians and should leave!

 

[Forward Press]

So essentially a family feud between Europe's ruling class.

You can bang on about details all you like but the ruling class of Europe at the time were related, had competing empires and as some of those empires (which had related royal families essentially leading them via constitutional monarhies and privileged upper houses or some other collection of inbred artistocratic deviants,) grew and began to compete, tensions grew with them.

I appreciate the discussion of modern history - I sincerely do - but maybe you should have posted something like that instead so Roylion had something to work with. I partially agree, by the way, because monarchies at the time even though they were mostly all related to each other, did little to cool down the tensions between countries.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I appreciate the discussion of modern history - I sincerely do - but maybe you should have posted something like that instead so Roylion had something to work with. I partially agree, by the way, because monarchies at the time even though they were mostly all related to each other, did little to cool down the tensions between countries.

Where do the Prussian Junker families fit into all this. Were they German royalty?

 

[Forward Press]

Where do the Prussian Junker families fit into all this. Were they German royalty?

Now that I have nfi. My knowledge of WW1 history is not that deep but I am aware of some of the other significant monarchs at that time.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Now that I have nfi. My knowledge of WW1 history is not that deep but I am aware of some of the other significant monarchs at that time.

Anyway it's not important, have moved away from the thread topic a tad

 

[eddiesmith]

Changing the date is just one step in the many steps we need to forge a better identity. New flag, head of state, currency, proper acknowledgment of our indigenous people.

Especially if the date is only moved to a silly date like March 3, passing of legislation most people at the time didn’t even realise was happening.

It needs to be a brand new date, the marking of a new chapter in our nation. It needs to be the date we finally cast off the British chains and become a Republic

Good, so we can put the change the date campaign off until Australia becomes a republic? If we’re waiting for the republic then it’ll be another 20+ years of protests.

 

[peetoo]

For us, the Great War is finito. A war which would have been a damn sight simpler if we'd just stayed in England and shot 50,000 of our men a week!

Those guys who played a soccer game british and Germans…worked it out pretty quickly

 

[South of the Yarra]

Good, so we can put the change the date campaign off until Australia becomes a republic? If we’re waiting for the republic then it’ll be another 20+ years of protests.

You can put it off, I won't be. Always Was, Always Will Be.

 

[ferball]

It wasn't caused by a family feud. As a constitutional monarch, for example, George V had very little say whether Britain went to war or what Britain's foreign policy was. Since the 1950s, historians have increasingly portrayed Wilhelm II of Germany as having very little control over Germany's foreign policy. Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm were long standing friends, as were George V and Nicholas II. George V and Nicholas II were both in Berlin for the wedding of Wilhelm's daughter Princess Victoria Louise in May 1913, fifteen months before the war broke out

Honestly it was just a throwaway line. I don't have much respect for aristocracy and was using poetic license.

So what.


That doesn't mean that the cause of World War I was a "family feud." No reputable historian argues that. A combination of militarism, imperialism and nationalism were the causes.

Look I get what you're saying but Europe's ruling class was more than, for example George and Wilhelm. Who were the people who had control over foreign policy? Were they aristocrats? Or upper class twats with shiney uniforms and too many fake medals? Were they related by birth or marriage or angling for a shot at being related by marriage? Cos its not the "feud" aspect of it so much as the family aspect of it that I'm drawing attention too. Why was power concentrated among those groups? Anyway we're waaaaay off topic here.

 

[burge13]

You can put it off, I won't be. Always Was, Always Will Be.

Yep, nothing brings us all together like this...

"Its our land, not yours. You're a guest, nothing more"

 

[ferball]

I appreciate the discussion of modern history - I sincerely do - but maybe you should have posted something like that instead so Roylion had something to work with. I partially agree, by the way, because monarchies at the time even though they were mostly all related to each other, did little to cool down the tensions between countries.

It was a throwaway line. I didn't expect Roy (of all people) to respond.

 

[ferball]

Yep, nothing brings us all together like this...

"Its our land, not yours. You're a guest, nothing more"

If you want it to be your land too how about looking after it properly and caring for it like its a member of your family instead of something to screw money out of?

 

[sdfc]

Honestly it was just a throwaway line. I don't have much respect for aristocracy and was using poetic license.



Look I get what you're saying but Europe's ruling class was more than, for example George and Wilhelm. Who were the people who had control over foreign policy? Were they aristocrats? Or upper class twats with shiney uniforms and too many fake medals? Were they related by birth or marriage or angling for a shot at being related by marriage? Cos its not the "feud" aspect of it so much as the family aspect of it that I'm drawing attention too. Why was power concentrated among those groups? Anyway we're waaaaay off topic here.

Politicians were in control of foreign policy. Although it turned out they weren't in control at all.

 

[Cmarsh]

Yeah. Lets celebrate our relos getting blown to s**t because of a ruling class family feud in Europe over 100 years ago.

Its a commeration not a celebration.

 

[ferball]

Its a commeration not a celebration.

I think it should be what you say but often I get the impression its not.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Yep, nothing brings us all together like this...

"Its our land, not yours. You're a guest, nothing more"

And there is someone who is not willing to listen and learn. Aboriginal people have never owned the land, Aboriginals have always belonged to the land. Ownership of land only happened since the British invaded. The saying Always Was, Always will be means there has been an Aboriginal footprint from the beginning and despite best attempts to get rid of us, there will Always be an Aboriginal footprint. Aboriginal people are going nowhere.