A war which includes multiple great powers on both sides (both sides equal- either side can win) and happens on most of the globe (whole world not just known world) and has x casualties which is thought at the time to be so devastating that there won't be another war. It possibly should be only after 1900.

- I am not just defining it by multiple continetns.

I am simply showing you that almost all the same main participants were in it, and that new - and far more devestating - technology was used in the war.

Edited 4/16/2015 19:37:55

If we are talking about great advancements of technology, The 30 Years War saw some incredible advancements of technology, especially from Sweden.

Just want to make it clear that Germany didn't "started" the Great War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pFCpKtwCkI

It's debatable, I say Austriahungary started it, some say Serbia started it.

The Great War occured because of a combination of events. The most usual suspects, being blamed for causing it are Germany, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and Russia.

Russia has nothing to do with it (other than defending Serbia), Germany had nothing to do with it (other than defending Austriahungary).

The conflict would have probably been another one of these run-of-the-mill Balkan Wars we see all of the time, if Russia and Germany hadn't joined in and escalated the war to a global conflict. Due to Germany and Russia joining in, more countries decided to join the war (France, Britain, Montenegro). Then even more (Ottomans, Italy, Bulgaria). Then even MORE (Portugal, Romania, USA) And the thing just spiralled out of control.

I can't say this for certain, but perhaps if Russia and Germany didn't come into the war, it wouldn't have escalated into the huge conflict it was.

Russia and Germany certainly escalated it, but the Great War happened because Austriahungary declared war on Serbia (and Serbia refused to meet Austriahungary's sharp antiterrorism demands).

The conflict started because of that, but it maybe wouldn't have been a world war, if it wasn't for Russia and Germany.

This, class, is what we call a cyclical argument.

WW1: Germany marches through Belgium to try and invade France
WW2: Meh, Germany won't try that again... OH SHIT!

Mr. Attlee your ignorance is truly worrying me. If any of your posts are mere French bashing stereotyped comments, let me highlight the glorious English "fait d'armes".

WwI: France doing the main job alongside Russia in the allies side, whereas Britain timidly helping and contributing, in the western front, 3/4 of the armies fighting were French, 1/4 were British (before America started the war) French losses: 2 millions soldiers died and 5 millions soldiers wounded,plus half a million of civilian casualties. This bloodshed will greatly impact the French for the following war.

Ww2: The British cowardly stop fighting before France even surrendered, leaving their allies alone, and then flee the fight during Operation Dynamo.

Edited 4/17/2015 09:27:52

Britain declared on Germany in the Second World War for invading Poland, not Belgium.

The only two places Britain seem to care about are the British Isles, and the Falkland Isles.

And the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar ;)

Actually I was making a point that no one seemed to think that since Germany was at war with France again that someone would have thought to defend Belgium initially. Most of France's defences (i.e. the Maginot Line) were along the German boarder. Did any of the allies not think 'hey it might be a good idea to put more reinforces nearer Belgium?'

Mr. Attlee your ignorance is truly worrying me. If any of your posts are mere French bashing stereotyped comments, let me highlight the glorious English "fait d'armes".

What stenotypes was I highlighting? None. Stenotypes are for minor jokes, not for making serious points.

Britain declared on Germany in the Second World War for invading Poland, not Belgium.

I know, but Germany still marched through Belgium.

The only two places Britain seem to care about are the British Isles, and the Falkland Isles.

...

And the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar ;)

If you're going to start listing British overseas territories, then you might as well have the full list. That'll save people the effort of just going 'and Bermuda' or 'and Anguilla'.
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Turks and Caicos Islands

Edited 4/17/2015 16:30:26

Let's not forget the Commonwealth...

Australia
Bangladesh
Botswana
Cameroon
Canada
Ghana
India
Kenya
Lesotho
Malaysia
Malawi
Mozambique
New Zealand
Namibia
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Uganda
United Kingdom
Zambia

And the Commonwealth realms:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands

^what about them? It's a union of sovereign states. What point are you trying to make?