Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I never said that was why WW1 was caused. You're putting words in my mouth now (poorly).
I simply said that political lessons were learnt from the results and aftermath of WW1. And gave one (slightly obvious) example.
|
Wait, surely your point was that there was a good lession but it wasn't learnt? My point here is that it isn't a "good lesson" so the argument is flawed in its premise. Self-defence pacts with other countries are predominately a good thing. They serve as immediate motivators to provide aid to countries suffering invasion.
Quote:
|
Just because I don't choose to bring politics and history into threads on GD which really are nothing to do with either (like a few posters here do), doesn't mean my grasp of both or either is laughable.
|
Of course it doesn't. However you're either explaining yourself staggeringly poorly here or your grasp of politics and WWI history is lacking.
Quoting you again
Quote:
|
Such as making negotiations/alliances with countries that then mean we're drawn into hostilities over something which doesn't really concern us.
|
As this point is sarcastic the implication is that we a) made negotiations/alliances with other countries b) this was a bad thing and c) this is generally/predominately/wholly a bad thing. While point a) is true it's self-evident and irrelevant. Point b) is debatable and given the nature of expansionistic imperialism and nationalism most likely incorrect. Point c) ("the moral of the story") is flat out wrong.