More Travel Tips:
World War 3 Predictions Is This The End For America
What are the top World War 3 predictions andscenarios in today's world that is facing economic collapse in many countries, the threatof ISIS, a rogue anticonstitutionalist American President in Barack Hussein Obama and VladimirPutin wanting to bring back the old Mother Russiaé Why don't we have an honest discussionabout that. Can weé The many conflicts in the world today in Ukraine,the Middle East including Israel, Africa and other parts of the globe, coupled with racialtension and a financial outlook that points to economic collapse of many nations includingGreece, Russia and the United States coming soon sets a world war 3 scenario that lookseerily similar to what happened leading up
to World War 1. With the world in chaos at the beginning of1914, on June 28 of that same year, a Serbian nationalist kills both AustroHungarian ArchdukeFranz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie and one month later AustriaHungary declares war onSerbia and for the rest of 1914 the world spirals out of control with one country afteranother declaring war on either Germany or AustriaHungary. So, what could be the catalyst or kindlingthat brings about such a worldwide conflict and plunges the world into total waré Leadingup to WW I it was an assassination that lead
to that eventual massive conflict. Could thesame thing happen todayé And what role will a weakened America play at the hands of anineffective and weak leader that has an abysmal foreign policy and zero military experienceéAnd honestly, who's side is President Obama really oné What if Russian President Vladimir Putin wereto have the Ukrainian president knocked off like he may have had a hand in oppositionleader Boris Nemtsov's demiseé Would the world look at that and say enough is enough andtake sidesé Or what could happen if militant terroristssuch as ISIS acquire a nuclear weaponé But
who is ISIS really. Did we not create themby meddling in the Middle East. And what is the point of having a global World War 3é What does a World War doé In its most basicform, it changes the world. What did World War 1 doé In was the end of the age of empires.It was the end of the AustroHungarian empire and more importantly it was the end of theOttoman Empire which had lasted for more than 6 centuries. World War 2 was to bring Germany to powerto control all of Europe and Japan to control the Pacific region. Fortunately, both of thoseobjectives failed, but it still changed Europe,
ushering in the European Union and guess whocontrols that, Germany. And what would a World War 3 doé It wouldfinally usher in a global government under the pretense that we can't go on fightingwars like this any longer, that is after it kills probably half the world's population.It would be dark, it would be nuclear and it would be devastating. And it's all aboutpower. When the world is in turmoil as it is now,it turned to world war twice in the past. Will it completely destroy the planeté Probablynot. Will it usher in global government. Probably. Will you be able to do anything about itéProbably not. You may however be able to stock
up on some foodstuffs if you are in a remotepart of your own country where invading armies are not all that concerned about controlling,but eventually, there will be almost nothing you can do. That is one of the predictions of World War3.
HOW World War I Started Crash Course World History 209
Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course WorldHistory and today we're going to talk about World War I. We actually have two tutorials aboutWorld War 1. Today we're going to talk about how World War I happened. Next week we'regoing to talk about why. World War I is a really big deal. Especially to those of uswho are really interested in like, industrialization and nationstates and modernity. So usuallywe don't talk that much about wars, but we're going to make an exception. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, quot;Exceptionéquot; Cue theMongoltage. Yeah, no me from the past. We don't roll theMongoltage every time we use the word exception,
we roll it when we're talking about how theMongols are an exception to a lot of our assumptions about civilizations. Stan, Stan No, there are no Mongols today, weare talking about World War I. So I'm filming this in 2014, which means thatthe great war started 100 years ago and the World War I Centenary is just so hot rightnow, I can't miss out on it. So most historians agree that the event thatstarted World War I was the assassination of Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28,1914, but beyond that, there's not a lot of agreement. Others say the war really started after FranzFerdinand bit it. Like when Germany declared
war or when Russia mobilized. So looking atwhy a war or any historical event happened means looking for a cause and effect relationshipthat implicitly assumes that if one particular event in a chain of events had gone differently,the historical outcome would also be different. This is why we have alternate history novels.Right , like what would have happened in the American Civil War if the South had won theBattle at Gettysburgé What would have happened if the Nazis had repulsed the Dday invasionéIn both cases, probably eventually the same outcome but that's neither here nor there. The question we're looking at today is how.And that's a much more modest question because
we can simply discuss a series of events butit's still a complicated one because when you're talking about how, you'realways picking from an uncountable number of things that happened. You know, a butterflyflaps its wings and that leads to a series of events and then eventually across the worldan archduke gets killed. So even when it comes to a relatively straightforwardquestion like how, you'll never get to the bottom of all of it, but today we're goingto discuss some of the how. So one way or another, all wars start witha breakdown in peaceful relations between the eventual belligerents and World War Iis no exception.
Oh, for the love of agriculture please stopit. Right, but World War I is a bit unusual inthat we have a concrete event and a date to start our discussion. Sometimes we get lucky,historically, and there's an invasion that starts a war like in the Korean conflict or the firingon Fort Sumter in the American Civil War. But other times, it's much more butterflyeffecty with events that might or might not lead to a war, building upon each other untilone side mobilizes or declares war or there's a fight over who shot first. But here we have a specific assassination of aspecific archduke, Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.
Now it wasn't a great day for Franz to visitBosnia since it was the anniversary of the Serbs defeat at Kosovo Polje in 1389 and alsoSt. Vitus's day, which was a celebration for Slavic nationalists and a Bosnian Serb namedGavrilo Princip and his coconspirators chose to celebrate Slavic nationalism by killingFranz Ferdinand. Now they didn't choose Franz Ferdinand at random. Hewas the heir apparent of the AustroHungarian Empire Franz Ferdinand wasn't particularly well liked,not by his uncle who was the head of the AustroHungarian Empire, certainly not by Bosnian Serb nationalists,also not really by everyone else in Europe except for the German Kaiser, but Franz Ferdinandwas in his way kind of a moderate.
Who Started World War I Crash Course World History 210
Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course WorldHistory, and today we continue our discussion of how a regional conflict became World WarI. We're also going to look at who started the war and although no one nation is trulyto blame, some nations are more to blame than others. Like America, for onceé Blameless. Well, nottotally blameless. Largely blameless. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! That's easy, the Germansstarted the war. Well, Me from the Past, as it happens manyhistorians and British politicians would agree with you. I mean, you have an opinion that can bedefended. And I can't wait for you to defend it. Uhh. maybe they just, like, really liked waré I'mnot really in the defending positions business,
Mr. Green, I'm more in the like, bold proclamationsbusiness. Yes, Me from the Past, noted. But it turnsout, there's more to life than that. So the topic of who started World War I remainsone of the most controversial and interesting topics to discuss in World History, not least because,you know, we'd like to avoid having another one. But in general, when we talk about World Wars,as when we talk about World Cups, we pretty quickly end up discussing Germany. The idea that the root cause of World WarI was Germany, or more specifically, German militarism, continues to be popular. Thishas been the case ever since the 1960s when
this historian, Fritz Fisher, identified Germanyas the chief cause of the war. But Germany's guilt for the war was also written into theVersailles Peace Treaty, in article 231, and most of you will be familiar with the ideathat anger over that clause its incumbent debts helped lead to Hitler's rise. Also, pretty much however you slice it Germanywas definitely responsible for starting World War II, and looking back that made it moreplausible that they would have also stated World War I, because, you know, they had ahistory of starting wars. To be fair, the definition of a Western European nation isquot;has a history starting wars.quot;
Unless you're the Swiss. Cue the Switzereel, Stan! Yeah okay, but the thing is attributing characteristicslike militarism or authoritarianism to entire national populations is a little problematic.Also one nation's militarism is another nation's strong national defense, and when you livein the country, as I do, that spends more on defense than any other nation, it's probablynot that good of an idea to call people militaristic. There's just something about that broadbrushpainting of an entire nation sharing a particular characteristic that feels a little bit propaganday.Also, it wasn't just Germans who were militaristic
in 1914. The idea of quot;the glory of warquot; wasa very popular concept all over Europe, and really there's no evidence that the Germanpeople of 1914 were any more or less militaristic than the French or the Russians, They allhad poetry that celebrated heroic sacrifice and dying for the Mother andor Fatherland. That's not usually and. Maybe, though. I'mgonna stay open minded. But there's another problem with the wholeidea that the Germans were more eager for war than anyone else in Europe. That argumentrelies a lot on the behavior of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German leader, and the Kaiser didmake some pretty bellicose and stupid public
statements, which in turn made people fearthat Germans were eager for war. So Wilhelm became kind of a standin for German aggression,a literal cartoon villain, upon whom the world, especially the English, could project theirstereotypes. So I would argue that the German characterisn't to blame for World War I, and in fact no national character has ever been to blamefor any war. But I am not going to let the Germans off the hook entirely. So you will remember that Germany offeredthe socalled quot;blank checkquot; that Germans would always support AustroHungarians' ultimatumto Serbia. And in some ways this empowering