u/Medeza123

An interesting discussion on the Roman collapse.

I am aware that of course there were alliances between different European states but I still
am confused as to how a war which many in Europe didn’t want took place? We see the letters between the Tsar and the Kaiser where both state anti war positions, as well as the position of British Cabinet Minster Sir Edward Grey desperately trying to arrange peace conferences yet it’s still happened.

My understanding was that whilst Germany was blamed after the war this was overly harsh. But now I am seeing some revisionism on this issue. So why did it start and who was truly to blame? A militant insecure Russia? A bellicose Germany? A revanchist France looking to regain Alsace Lorraine?

I confess to being a bit ignorant around this area of history, I would be grateful if someone could not only answer the above but provide some context for what led to the outbreak of the war, atrocities committed by both sides (especially if this helps explains the end result) and also the role of outside powers like the USSR and Nazi Germany in the conflict.

I’m vaguely aware of elements of factionalism and infighting amongst the republicans but beyond this I have no idea how Franco won.

Maybe I am completely wrong on this, but when I think of the countries that had the most liberal thought, and the leaders of the Enlightenment, I think of the UK and France, and to a lesser extent the low countries. I tend to think the HRE, Austria, and "Germany" were very progressive on the science side of things, but still super conservative when it comes to politics.

I'm not saying I would expect the UK to embrace Napoleon, but I would think they would be the most likely to think he is someone they could work with, and reach and understanding with. Whereas I would think Austria and Russia would be completely dead set against him. But in reality it was the opposite, the UK always strongly opposed Napoleon, but Austria and Russia were sometimes his ally.

Now I guess the main thing is that Napoleon could get at everyone in continental Europe, but he was never going to rule the sea. But still, I would think at some point the UK would think "we don't like him but we can work with him."

So why was the UK so devoted to taking down Napoleon? Was it because of geopolitics and had nothing to do with ideology?

I am aware of human rights abuses in China and coming from a free western country find much of how it is governed troubling. On the other hand China used to be one of the poorest countries in the world as recently as the 80s. Most people did not even speak standard mandarin there until recently and it has consistently been one of the fastest growing countries in the world and has rarely intervened in other countries affairs through military intervention. Is it fair to say that western rhetoric aside the Chinese government has done better than average at its job? Especially when compared to similar civilisation diverse states like India?

To elaborate good governance to me mean growth, security, education, health, infrastructure, anti corruption etc etc. All the usual metrics. Basically the wellbeing of the people.

One thing I have found confusing about the Ottomans is how they went from the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 and the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in the 1500s to then begin a slow decline by the 1600s according to overviews I’ve seen.

Why when Britain, France and Russia were able to stay major world powers well into the 19th and early 20th century did the Ottomans fall
so far behind?