the way he tried to squeeze a russian centrality in there is what would cause a professor to laugh.

russia 'supporting' the assassinations? oh do elaborate...

__________________

My focus would be the Treaty of Versailles.

which hardly involved the Russians. (let's not forget how russia exited the war)

__________________

I believe there is a bit of miscommunication going on here. Wiggidy was simply agreeing that WW1, and its aftermath, contributed to the causes of WW2. However he made that comment by responding to a post where the theory that Russia knew about the Black Hand's involvement, and was involved in the plotting, was put fourth. Hence htperr confusion in thinking Wiggidy agreed with that theory.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

You nailed it!

Oh yes they would.
The actual start of WWI was by Russia declaring war on Austria/Hungary, in order to aid Serbia in preventing the capture and arrest of the Black Hand terrorists, responsible for the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife.

Russia was central to causing WWI.
Serbia would never have protected the terrorists if Russia has not backed them.
And the war would have been limited to the invasion of Serbia if Russia had not declared war on Austria/Hungary.

There is strong evidence that it was the Serbian military that was behind the assassination, and that Russia knowingly prevented the prosecution of those who ordered it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand

please refrain from rampant, excessive ignorance.
again, please refrain from massive, unadulterated ignorance.

__________________

ok..... i asserted that the argument was trash. wiggidy says it was not. I cite the actual argument, and i am on the one confused?

when someone defends an argument, i take that to mean they are defending the argument.

__________________

kind of like how british chauvanism was the cause of WW2?

__________________

Calm down there champ, I agreed that the aftermath of WWI and how it was handled was a main cause of WW2. You implied I agreed with the other theory.

It was just a misunderstanding, don't become an asshat.

asshat? champ?

anywho, read post 89. you cited the argument. the argument was not a general statement of the 'aftermath' of ww1 causing ww2. it involved direct references to Russia, of which you cited in entirety, and now i am the confused fellow when i take issue with a russian centrality of ww1?

__________________

Except wiggidy wasn't defending the argument that Russia backed the Black Hand and forced the war.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

It was an honest mistake on his part htperr, and one that I thought was quite clear.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

then why did he cite it and criticize me for disagreeing with it?

its not like we are talking about a term paper here. It was a two sentence argument.

and if he wasn't agreeing with both sentences, he could have said so.

__________________

Hence his mistake. He, quite obviously, was referencing the first sentence. He should have been more specific, I agree. However, I believe you knew what he meant all along and are simply splitting hairs.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance