i'm doing a paper of why world war one would have started even if the arch duke wasnt shot and i cant think of anything for alliances. so can anyone help?
213091
Basically, there was a lot of tension between counties at that point due to the world order that came out of the Napoleonic Wars. Due to this tension, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was all that was needed to set off the war. After the assassination, Austria-Hungary send out an ultimatum to Serbia (once they had the promise of Germany's help if war should break out). Serbia had a problem with one demand, so once they had the promise of support from Russia, they rejected the ultimatum. This led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia. Austria-Hungary attacks Serbia, Germany declares war on Russia but attacks France due to Schlieffen Plan, Belgium refuses Germany free passage to France which brings England into the picture...\n\nWhat if the Archduke wasn't shot? Well, some other event may have happened that would have had these alliances invoked. It is hard to say whether war would definitely occurred, however, it is easy to say that it was probable, as a conflict between two countries quickly grew to involve all of Europe (and even Northern Africa and the Middle East with the Ottoman Empire as well as a large part of Asia with Russia).
499763
what about the french 100 year war?  what about England and France, What about Germany WW1 and WW11, what about Japan WW11? China?  these countries are far more bloody than the US as we haven't existed as long as they have..\n\nRemember WW1 and WW11 were both started by Germany.  Japan bombed the US in WW11.. pearl harbor, but oh yeah, we aren't allowed to defend our selves, just France and England and the rest of Europe.
568365
Perhaps this can help you: \n\nhttp://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/WW1_timeline.htm
273204
At the time of WWII the allies were very anxious to have the United States enter and aide in the conflict due to the fact that at the time it was one of the only countries with the resources to possibly wage a successful war against Germany.  Of course there is always politics in any conflict but the basic reason for the war was Germany's desire to conquer and rule countries and people that wished to maintain their own sovereignty.
83515
In World War I, the six major powers were set against each other. At the time, the US was an isolationist (which means that we didn't want to get involved in European affairs) There was a lot of nationalism in the countries, and each country built up their armies. Russia, France, and Britain against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Noone expected it to cause as many causualties as it did, but since each nation was so powerful, it did. The troops were in trenches, (trench warfare) for several years. At the time, they had machine guns, and the only way to advance was to cross the area between the trenches called "No man's land" When they crossed no man's land, they were mowed down with machine guns. So the generals, instead of looking for other methods, chose instead to send more troops, causing more casualties.
438122
Before Germany invaded france and poland to start all out war in WW2 the league of nations ignored the threat of military buildup of troops by Geermany look what happened.\n\nLook at Sudan, Saddam didn't listen, why should the U.S.\n\nWhen there is an organisation that has member nations sitting on human rights panels but yet violate human rights makes you wonder.\n\nThe U.N. is more like a directors meeting, it is there to assist in communication and help if member nations agree to.\n\nIt is not mandatory for one nation to obey the U.N.\n\nAmerica pays the biggest fee to be a member, and yet is always shot down, yet when tragdy is in the world everybody demands the U.S. to do more.\n\nThe U.N. is a waste, N.A.T.O has bigge cajonas than the U.N.\n\nWhile Canadian, American, and British troops are fighting the Taliban for the benefit of Afghans other countries are sitting back paying lip service but not getting into the NATO supported fight for the people of Afghan.\n\nAnd the Canadian / U.S. soft lumber deal was a NAFTA issue not the U.N. it was a NAFTA panel that supported Canadas motion, and if the Liberal powers of the time were not so rude to our american cousins the soft lumber deal probably wouldn't have happened.  If the U.S. wants to put a pipeline in on their side of lake Ontario to get water that is their choice.\n\nBut When you look at world bodies it sounds like a bunch of bull than a world striving for results.\n\nIf the U.N. cared they wouldn't wait for Sudan to ask for international help, cause there is genocide going on a real leader stands up and takes the fall if it does not work, otherwise it is just another level of political bull.
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.
539822
Your question is kind of confusing because I don't know if you want information regarding the Central Powers (the triple alliance) or the Triple Entente.  What I can tell you is that anything you want to know about WWI you can get at this website http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm
216963
the reason why europe has been starting world wars is that they were the most advanced countries in the past and moreover europe being a congested continent with the countries so close to each other, they always had an issue with each other and with so many of them involved things used to become very tricky.\n\nanyways i think that the third world war would  not be started by europe.  it would most probably start from asia with the US playing a key role(not in positive sense)
374077
After the 1st World War, many in the U. S. were wary of becoming entangled in another war.  Senator Henry Cabot Lodge led a group of senators who were afraid the U.S. might get pulled into another war trying to enforce the Leagues wishes..or that the League might try to interfere with the business and wishes of our country.  They were called "isolationists'  and this was called the "isolationist era."  TODAY  the United States is very much involved in other coutries business, and in wars in other countries ...and now many people  again believe that we should back off from that.  Some Democrats say it was the fault of Republicans that we did not join the League.  Yet, it is the Democrats now who are saying we should get out of Iraq and mind our own business.  So, you  see, nothing is new...history repeats itself with different names.   There is a fine balance between isolationism and "assisting" other nations?  Understand?\nThis needs more thought than some of the flippant answers I see were given.  Also, I see one person said something about Israel...Israel did not exist until after the League was disbanded.  And, the United Nations was formed AFTER the League was disbanded.
364587
NO EASY ANSWERS - but useful hints instead, from a (former) world history teacher. \n\n1. Think of who the slave traders wanted - mainly young men who were useful as laborers. So what would happen if a region where most people were farmers lost a lot of its strong workers? Also, think of how the people were removed, and how people would logically react. They didn't go willingly, and their families weren't happy about it. \n\n2. The examples are simply a list, and it's not useful to just copy from an email. Besides, your teacher probably used specific examples, and mine might be different. You'll find most of the anti-colonial resistance taking place between 1890 and 1960, and some examples you can look up are the Asante revolt, the Igbo Women's War, the Bambatha Uprising, the Chilembwe Revolt, the Maji-Maji Rebellion, and the Chimurenga/Second Chimurenga. You should be able to Google these or look them up in a book, or ask your school librarian and get answers fairly quickly - ones that you can remember on the upcoming test because you learned them for homework!\n\n3. Salt and gold had their uses, and more importantly, they were found in different parts of West Africa, so the people with salt traded it for gold, and vice versa. Again, not a tough one to look up yourself, and worth the effort. Try any middle school textbook chapter on precolonial Africa, and you should get a map of the salt and gold trade. \n\n4. Which defeat of Germany? Probably WWI. I don't know if Germany was defeated so much by events as by situations. The alliance against Germany included France, Russia, England and eventually the United States, and the entry of the US into WWI was important. The German u-boat sinking of the liner Lusitania triggered American entry. \n\nThe Bolshevik Revolution in Russia also stirred up a stong enemy in the east. \n\nGermany and its allies were surrounded by hostile powers and unable to get many products needed for fighting a war, including food for the soldiers. So their supply problem was also a cause of their defeat. \n\n5. The time period matters here, and you will have to filter through my ideas to find the ones that fit your class. \n\n- Developing economies grew slowly for a variety of reasons, including:\n  - colonizers made them serve the colonial market, producing less profitable goods, and/or selling them so cheaply as not to make a profit, therefore the colonized peoples never had money to spend on improving their production\n  - many colonies had labor laws that allowed colonizers to all but enslave the locals, which meant that there was little reason to educate the workforce or build for the future\n  - developed countries made and enforced rules that kept developing countries from making certain products (for example, England - which had colonized India - outlawed the production of cloth in India, which meant Indians could grow cotton, but coud only buy cloth from England, which helped the English factories and economy)\n  - Developing countries mainly produce farm, mine and fishery products, and they have to buy industrial products to make a profit, but prices for farm, mine and fishery products declined in the late 20th century, so that people in developing countries had to spend more of their production on equipment from developed economies\n  - In recent decades, developed countries lent money at interest to developing countries, which then had to pay back the interest. Large loans encouraged corruption in the developing world, and as a result the developing countries didn't, well, develop much, and so they were less and less able to pay back their growing debts. Or, for that matter, to do anything else that required money.
161500
I don't need 3 or 4 pages. What distinguishes World War One from all previous conflicts was that it was what we call a "Total War". That meant that not only were ALL citizens from the belligerent countries fair game for destruction, but all citizens were expected to contribute to the way effort in any way they could. There were no rules of gentlemanly conduct and no limits to what either side could do. It was a contest between the maximum force of one side, and the maximum force of the other side, hence, Total War.
541021
It's very unlikely that you will get a first hand account, so see if surfing theses links can throw up some information for you.\n\nWorld War I\nWEB LINKS\n\nPRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS.\n\nFantastic Resources.\n\nhttp://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-WorldWar1.htm\n\nWorld War I\n\nhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWusaG.htm\n\nAlthough the USA had strong ties with Britain, Wilson was concerned about the large number of people in the country who had been born in Germany and Austria. Other influential political leaders argued strongly in favour of the USA maintaining its isolationist policy. This included the pacifist pressure group, the American Union Against Militarism.\n\nhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWW.htm\n\nhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook38.html\n\nRead and listen to stories of the War from the people who lived it. Explore diaries, letters, scrapbooks, newspaper cuttings, photos and keepsakes.\n\nhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/worldwarone/\n\nhttp://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/\n\nhttp://www.wfa-usa.org/new/links.cfm\n\nAn Internet History of The Great War\n\nhttp://www.worldwar1.com/\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
328270
Great Britain\nUnited States\nRussia\nFrance\nItaly--joined later (was part of axis before)
309758
Well, the Allies were many different countries.  You would have to narrow down your question a little bit if you want to know something specific.  As far as some of the Allies go, China, France, England and Russia, as well as many other countries, were fighting to save their homeland.  Many of these countries were actually occupied by one or more of the Axis powers.  England held its own, but Germany was attempting to invade and did its best, but England was too determined to keep them out.  If you ask why the United States was involved in the war, it was partly because we were attacked by the Japanese.  The reason we fought in the European Theater is because the Allied leadership felt it was necessary to defeat the Germans and Italians because they were the more powerful combination in the Axis.  For your actual question, why were they fighting?  The Allies felt that people deserved the right to be free and be able to live the way they wanted as long as they didn't infringe on others right to do the same and the Axis powers wanted to control everyone and force them to live by their rules and according to their beliefs.  That would be why the Allies fought, to stop that from happening.
626751
Throughout the world and history there has always been a clash between two opposing factions.  The radical involvement of Gorilla Warfare and Terrorism is an offshoot of these actions.  Look at specific clashes to see them.  Northern Ireland's primary conflict involves Religion between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants.  You have the clashes in the middle east in Palestine, Israel and the like over land claims.  If Hitler had succeeded it would have been a short lived victory as the nations of the Allies would have revamped and taken another run at him.  Could it have been possible that the US bomb Germany with an Atomic Bomb rather than Japan?  The ramifications would have been astounding!
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.