World War 1,Russian Revolution,American invasion of Russia(why and when)
120915
In July 1918. \nShortly after the October revolution, Russia unilaterally signed a peace treaty with Germany (Brest peace treaty). In order to resurrect the Eastern front, Allies decided to intervene. More is written in history books. \n\nSee Wikipedia, for example.
218785
WWI had the introduction of machine guns and flame throwers.  they also used "trench warfare."  soldiers would dig long, deep trenches in the ground for protection, and would keep digging layers of trenches to get closer to the enemy lines.  some slow planes were used in WWI, but it wasn't until WWII that had actual dogfights.  WWII also had nuclear bombs (the US dropping them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and pipe bombs (used when storming the beaches of Normandy, like in Saving Private Ryan).  The Korean War was a transitional period to guerilla warfare that was featured in the Vietnam Conflict.  In Vietnam they also used Napalm (bombs that would burst into flames and burn the jungles, along with its victims) by dropping these bombs from airplanes, along with agent orange.  The Cold War was basically espionage and an arms race.  It started around the time of JFK (1960-63) with the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis (if you like movies, check out Thirteen Days, an HBO movie with Kevin Costner).  Basically between the 1960s and 1989, the US and former Soviet Union tried to see who can make the biggest arsenal of nuclear warheads.  You can look any of this information up at wikipedia.  they have a lot of good information, but make sure you try and check it with something else because they do have a lot of misleading stuff, especially in history.
168780
I think that it was the American propaganda machine. There was a power struggle between the USA and USSR. By the way, I too am a fan of Hitch Hiker's Guide, "Don't Panic".
346752
The assasination of the Austrian prince would be great for an essay - but a very long one. The assasination was more of a trigger on a gun, rather than the bullet, gun powder, and gun itself (as well as who was pointing it at whom) since there were a large variety of factors already staged for the beginning of World War I when this happened. The more I read about it, the more I realize what an expert one needs to be to explain it!\n\nHistorical questions are always complex, so I would shoot for something that appears as simple as possible - since it won't turn out that way, anyway. One example might be how slavery in our country caused the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Because of the distance of time between the events, the cause and effects are actually more sweeping and therefore, easier to see.
619670
2nd amendment, baby!  In the 1950s, the USSR determined that a land invasion of the US would be impossible not because of the US Army, but because of armed citizens.  If you think the insurgency in Iraq is bad, you ain't seen nothing - 300 million armed Americans - look out!\n\nOf course, the US Navy would likely reap havoc on the invading forces - the Atlantic and Pacific fleets would intercept the invading fleets and destroy many of the forces before they arrived.  They can't handle aircraft carrier battle groups, and many of their capital ships and troop ships would be sunk, with tens of thousands of foreign soldiers drowning on the high seas.\n\nMeanwhile, US forces currently in Afghanistan and Iraq turn north and invade Kazhakhstan, easily overrunning local resistance and breaking into Russian territory in the Crimean penninsula.  America takes the Caucuses, cutting off 70% of Russia's oil supply and dealing a major blow to the invading nations.  At the same time, US Navy SEALs are dispatched to take over Britian's North Sea offshore oil platorms, cutting Western Europe's oil supply.\n\nBecause the world's internet is under US control, America immediately turns off servers supporting any web sites in the invading nations, dealing a major blow to foreign communication and propeganda efforts that could have been used to their advantage.  Additionally, US military intelligence flicks a switch, cutting off all satellite communications and disabling the operation of any US-made arms and aircraft used by the invading powers.  Suddenly the US manufactured missiles on the French jets can't track their targets, rendering them and countless other weapons useless\n\nBut these are the tactical responses.  The Strategic response is much more engaging.  As we hit DEF-CON 3 and DEF-CON 2 rather quickly, the TRIAD is put into motion - land, air, and sea based nuclear weapons, baby!  US nuclear bombers are airborne and circling over Alaska, waiting for orders to strike anywhere in the world.  Nuclear missile submarines are at launch depth, and the Intercontinental Balistic Missiles are ready for launch.  America assures Russia that it will not be nuked, and proceeds to demand the immediate surrender of all other invading powers under threat of nuclear war.  Countries like UK and France have about 5 nuclear weapons capable of hitting America - but they are likely powered by US manufactured rockets and guidance systems, again rendering them useless.  These countries capitulate almost immediately.  Russia, it's invading force nearly destroyed and it's allies surrendered and beaten, must decide whether to resort to nuclear war, or to call off the attack.  Russia knows that it has nothing to gain by using nukes, so it calls off the invasion.\n\nAmerica 1, Everyone Else 0.  Don't mess with the red, white, and blue.  And do stand as we play the Star Spangled Banner at the formal surrender ceremony.  God bless America!
91737
Entangling alliances triggered by the assassination.  Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia because of the assassination.  Serbia was allied with Russia, so Russia was dragged into the war.  Germany mobilized to attack Russia, but Russia was allied with France so France came to Russia's defense.  Germany and France had been at war before and had plans for invading each other.  France's entry into the war led Germany to use one of their old plans for invading France which required them to march through Belgium.  Britain was allied with Belgium and had pledged to help Belgium in the event of an attack by Germany, so Britain was pulled in on the side of the French and Russians.  Since Britain was involved, that meant all of her colonies were involved as well.  \n\nThe book The Guns of August has lots of details on the causes of the war.\n\nAlso, check out the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I
185896
There were over a million Americans in World War I in 1918. Who are you looking for?
328257
A dream that has already happened.  Prior to 1914 and the first world war, there were no weapons of Mass Dist ruction.  War still occurred and countries invaded each other.  Countries were threatened all of the time.  \n\nBesides, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back into the bottle.  If such weapons were done away with do you really think that some nation wouldn't develop them in secret?  Of course they would and then they would rule the world.\n\nA nice dream, but not reflective of reality.
116843
Wow, just ignore the previous post. Someone has their wars mixed up.\n\nThe United States was neutral during WWI because they felt that this was a European conflict, and none of their business. What drew us into the war was a German U-boat attack on a US ship.
234096
The 1st Gulf War between the U.S. and Iraq, after Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s.  The conflict took place in the Middle East, specifically Iraq and Kuwait.  The reasons for the war have been the subject of debate.  Some say the U.S. fought the war along with British allies to liberate Iraq.  Other people say the U.S. fought the war because Kuwait had a lot of oil and they didn't want American oil interests falling into the hands of Saddam Hussein.  The United States and its allies won. \n\nAnother example is the war fought between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan in the 1980s.  The communist Soviet Union, before collapsing and breaking up into many countries, fought a war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  The Soviets were trying to take over Afghanistan much as they had done with other regions of the world in their brief 20th century existence.  The Soviets lost the war.  Many Russian Soviet soldiers died.  They were not able to take over Afghanistan and make it part of the Soviet Union.
118679
Where and when did that revolution happen?\n\nDO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
1344
"America" is not a country, it's a continent formed by three sub-continents (north, central and south america).\n\nNow about the question, since it's about the USA... Marx's wrote his works more than 100 years ago, with Germany in mind (the fact that Russia was the place where the revolution took place and was successful is still a high topic among historians) --by then, the USA was an underdeveloped country, without a big proletarian base or an industrial/urban developed production system, which was the requested condition for the revolution (again, Russia was a contradiction to this request). Therefore, you cannot apply Marx's theory 'directly' to a country today. The capitalist system has developed internal restraints and "decompressing" mechanisms that ensure that, even when the inequality and the poverty or the income distribution are ignominious, the system is not under danger of disruption.\n\nCapitalism, as Marx said, might have the seed of self destruction, but it also has selfpreservation mechanisms (corporations, NGOs, formal democracy --even in non-democratic countries--). Also, it offers what some people might call a 'messianic' or 'religious' promise: the best of the worlds is here, on earth and while you are alive, and you need money and success to attain it (I am talking about the protestant capitalism, not the catholic one, which came later): therefore, the success of capitalism is guaranteed by the fact that the lower classes want to become middle class, and middle class wants to become high class. This ensures all of them, especially the middle class, is ultra-conservative, fighting to keep the status-quo, so they can (someday) be high-class and enjoy what the system promises (of course, the status-quo needs to be based on inequality, so you have classes and people fight to escalate in the social chain).\n\nwhat do I know?...
60289
The Allies in WWI were almost the same Allies in WWII. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the matter:\n\nWorld War I, also known as the First World War, and (before 1939) the Great War, the War of the Nations, and the War to End All Wars, was a world conflict lasting from August 1914 to the final Armistice (cessation of hostilities) on November 11, 1918.The Allied Powers (led by Britain, France, and, later, the United States) defeated the Central Powers (led by Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire), and led to the collapse of four empires and a radical change in the map of Europe.
139839
The Hundred Years' War\nThe War of 1812\nWorld War I\nWorld War II\n9/11 (September 11, 2001)
296112
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.
129141
The First World War, or (before 1939) the Great War, was a world conflict lasting from August 1914 to the final Armistice on November 11, 1918. The Allied Powers (led by the United Kingdom, France and until 1917 Russia , and, after 1917, the United States) defeated the Central Powers (led by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). \n\nThe Allies won.
12165
The WWI(1914-1918) began as a clash between two coalitions of European countries. The first coalition, known as the Allied Powers, included the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, and the Russian Empire, japan, and Italy\nThe Central Powers, which opposed them, consisted of the empires of Germany and Austria-Hungary, The Ottoman Empire and  Bulgaria .\nAlthough the United States initially remained neutral, it joined the Allies in 1917.