• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If there were founding fathers of a new world order

Craig4 said:
Have you read Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" yet? If not, please do so and return to this thread. You lack some important foundational knowledge for this discussion.
Click to expand...
turingtest said:
Robert Massie's Dreadnought would be good, too, though that might be a bit involved for Bubba.
Click to expand...
Geoffrey Wawro's A Mad Catastrophe and Fromkin's Europe's Last Summer are my recommendations.

Dave Rogers said:
I posted a simplified explanation a few years back that one or two people quite liked...

Dave
Click to expand...
That was excellent.
 
Craig4 said:
Ummm... there wasn't anything secret about the run up for war. The only things that were unclear were what side Italy would be on and would Turkey enter the war. That there would be another European War was a forgone conclusion after the Franco Prussian War in the 1870s that forced France to cede Alsace Loraine.
Click to expand...

...and the creation of the German Empire especially after it defeated Austria to become the recognized central European power.
 
Rum said:
The actual facts, as opposed to the rantings of a paranoid conspiracy nut are even more intriguing and astonishing. A complex web of alliances, treaties and stupidity meant that war was more or less inevitable when it finally broke.
Click to expand...

This is one of my pet peeves about CTers and secret history types. This stuff is already fascinating. You don't need to spice it up with unimportant nonsense to make it interesting if you just take the time and effort to learn.
 
turingtest said:
That's a fair question, Bubba. I think that was an unnecessary dig at you on my part, and I apologize for it. If you haven't read the book, though, you should. You'll see that CTs about "secret origins" and "new world orders" simply aren't necessary.
Click to expand...

Well thanks.

Was there a "neurological payoff" involved ? Just funnin ya. (mostly)

(interesting question nonetheless)

>

I'd vote for eschewing the label 'new world order'. Sometimes labeling can become problematic, but not always. I'd vote for noting trends, behaviors, correlations, etc instead of looking for some certain critter wearing a hat with NWO printed on it. Consolidation of power, locally, nationally, globally and subtle linkage thereof comes to mind as an area to look at. Then maybe consider related claims, quotes, history etc
 
turingtest said:
... You'll see that CTs about "secret origins" and "new world orders" simply aren't necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Robert Massie's Dreadnought is a good informative read, thanks.

"Secret origins" implies secrecy is involved.

In war and in other business practices, secrecy seems fairly commonplace, doesn't it? Or is that only in the movies?

Secret deals made in back rooms, corporate spies, surprise attacks, codes, military spies, code breaking, dirty campaign tricks, etc, flying a false flag on your ship to trick the other guys into lowering their guard, etc, blowing stuff up and blaming others or wearing their uniforms, secret handshakes, etc. Secrecy greases the rails.

It only makes sense (to me) that in war and business, secrecy would be used whenever possible to gain advantage. Hence it seems reasonable to say that it sometimes succeeds without being detected, because some guys are smart enough or lucky enough. Haven't some of those military classified secrets remained classified for years before finally being unclassified? I wonder what was the longest time period for classification of secret stuff.

Since it makes sense that secrecy would be used because it can effectively deliver advantages, it therefore seems logical to me that
a) secrecy is used often, and therefore
b) it has succeeded on occasion, and we will never know because it is secret.

Didnt the Manhattan project succeed in being undetected for a while? Dont conspirators in crime and govt need to keep their stuff secret, even if they wind up getting caught? Is it reasonable to claim there has never been any successful (secret) conspiracies pulled off? How surprised should one be if it turned out that there were secret origins leading to war?

Seems like secrecy is the way to go for bad guys, and for good guys wanting to stop the bad guys. Power corrupts, secrecy improves the odds for the power mad bad guys. Secrecy helps the good guys win.

Why would you, as a clever military/corporate/tyrant evil unscrupulous bad guy, knowing the advantages, not operate in secret whenever appropriate (whenever you think you can get away with it) in order to gain power, gold, land, slaves, fame, whatever?
 
Bubba said:
I'd vote for noting trends, behaviors, correlations, etc instead of looking for some certain critter wearing a hat with NWO printed on it.
Click to expand...



full.png
 
Bubba said:
Whoa, how can one know that?

Isnt there a descriptive term for that skill?
Click to expand...

Because it was perfectly obvious to the entire planet that France was going to war to retake Alsace Lorraine from the Germans after their defeat in the Franco Prussian War.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I posted a simplified explanation a few years back that one or two people quite liked...

Dave
Click to expand...
God, I love that post. I've quoted you without attribution to some European co-workers.

Bubba said:
Why?
Click to expand...
A couple of book recommendations if you really want to know about WWI's origins:

- non-fiction - Catastrophe - the first few hundred pages give a nice factual picture of the run-up to WWI
- fiction - Ken Follett Fall of Giants frames the "catastrophe" in personal terms.
 
Bubba said:
I'm sure Robert Massie's Dreadnought is a good informative read, thanks.

"Secret origins" implies secrecy is involved.

In war and in other business practices, secrecy seems fairly commonplace, doesn't it? Or is that only in the movies?

Secret deals made in back rooms, corporate spies, surprise attacks, codes, military spies, code breaking, dirty campaign tricks, etc, flying a false flag on your ship to trick the other guys into lowering their guard, etc, blowing stuff up and blaming others or wearing their uniforms, secret handshakes, etc. Secrecy greases the rails.

It only makes sense (to me) that in war and business, secrecy would be used whenever possible to gain advantage. Hence it seems reasonable to say that it sometimes succeeds without being detected, because some guys are smart enough or lucky enough. Haven't some of those military classified secrets remained classified for years before finally being unclassified? I wonder what was the longest time period for classification of secret stuff.

Since it makes sense that secrecy would be used because it can effectively deliver advantages, it therefore seems logical to me that
a) secrecy is used often, and therefore
b) it has succeeded on occasion, and we will never know because it is secret.

Didnt the Manhattan project succeed in being undetected for a while? Dont conspirators in crime and govt need to keep their stuff secret, even if they wind up getting caught? Is it reasonable to claim there has never been any successful (secret) conspiracies pulled off? How surprised should one be if it turned out that there were secret origins leading to war?

Seems like secrecy is the way to go for bad guys, and for good guys wanting to stop the bad guys. Power corrupts, secrecy improves the odds for the power mad bad guys. Secrecy helps the good guys win.

Why would you, as a clever military/corporate/tyrant evil unscrupulous bad guy, knowing the advantages, not operate in secret whenever appropriate (whenever you think you can get away with it) in order to gain power, gold, land, slaves, fame, whatever?
Click to expand...

I concur that Dreadnought is something of a must read.
It's really clearly written and, considering the amount of stuff going on, not that large a book.
 
catsmate said:
Geoffrey Wawro's A Mad Catastrophe and Fromkin's Europe's Last Summer are my recommendations.


That was excellent.
Click to expand...

"The Sleepwalkers" by Christopher Clark is very good for the deep background of why WOrld War One Happened.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sleepwalkers-Europe-Went-1914/dp/0061146668/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y


Last Years Centennial brought out a whole flock of new books on the origins and outbreak of World War One. A lot of them were not very good...and some were pure crap....but there were some good ones also.

"Europe's Last Summer" is also very good.

And the BBC Miniseries "37 Days" is really good.
 
Last edited:
erwinl said:
I concur that Dreadnought is something of a must read.
It's really clearly written and, considering the amount of stuff going on, not that large a book.
Click to expand...

'Dreadnought" is very good but it's mainly about why Germany and Britain went to war;it's not really concerned with why the other great powers went to war. Almost nothing on Russia,France,the Balkans and Austria Hungry. That's not a criticism, the story of how the friendship between Germany and Britian went bad is the story Massie wanted to tell.But you really need other books to understand the origin or World War One.
I also really liked "Castles of Steel",Massie's sort of sequel to Dreadnought,which tells the story World War One at sea,with Britian and Germany being the two main combantants.
 
dudalb said:
'Dreadnought" is very good but it's mainly about why Germany and Britain went to war;it's not really concerned with why the other great powers went to war. Almost nothing on Russia,France,the Balkans and Austria Hungry. That's not a criticism, the story of how the friendship between Germany and Britian went bad is the story Massie wanted to tell.But you really need other books to understand the origin or World War One.
I also really liked "Castles of Steel",Massie's sort of sequel to Dreadnought,which tells the story World War One at sea,with Britian and Germany being the two main combantants.
Click to expand...
I also liked "Castles of Steel", even though there were some minor sloppy errors in it and it more or less ended after the Battle at Jutland.

But you're right. Dreadnought tells the story about the UK vs Germany. Still.A good read. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom