World War 1; June 1914 or June 2014? : ThyBlackMan

Sunday, November 19, 2017


World War 1; June 1914 or June 2014?

April 28, 2014 by  
Filed under News, Opinion, Politics, Weekly Columns

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

(ThyBlackMan.com) In a few months it will be the summer of 2014. As such it is difficult for me not to project infinite possibilities reduced to a singular historical event – the start of World War I in 1914. See, up to the actual start of the First World War, folk were completely oblivious to how dramatic a pace things would change, and it makes me wonder if the same type of reticent ease evinced by most Americans will be abruptly ended this summer given the tensions between the EU, USA and Russia.

Now I am not saying all is exactly the same, true, different times and different events, but some of the parallels are notably similar. Now albeit in this age of sound bites, in which the TV pundits tend to accept that the cause of WW1 was singularly due to the assassination of the presumed Austro-Hungarian heir, Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a group of Bosnian Serbs from the revolutionary movement called Mlada Bosna (‘Youngwwi15-2014 Bosnia’) while he and his wife were visiting Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, personally, I consider several other factors that were responsible for the war that just happened to culminate in the aforementioned event. In fact, I would even venture to say that this was just an excuse for the Austria-Hungary alliance to declare war on its neighbor in an attempt to eliminate what they perceived and completely contrived to be a ‘Serbian threat.”

Now these other events, remind me strangely of what is occurring in the Ukraine in concert with the EU, Russia and the U.S. First, there was the Franco-Prussia war of 1870 to 1871 which saw France take a beat down leading to them having to pay Germany a lot of loot as a consequence which assisted in the creation of a powerful German Empire with a military and industrial complex to match which Europe understood would severely disrupt the balance of power on the continent. Similar in the manner in which the so-called actions of Russia have caused within the contextual arrangements via the Crimea and Ukraine. Notwithstanding the same locution present suggesting the predisposition of NATO towards Russia emergence after the demise of the U.S.S.R., that borders more on emotive perspectives than rational reality – the type of responses that frequently lead to, instead of squashing, motives directed toward civil and even worse, international wars.

In addition, two other events, TheMoroccan Crises (inclusive of both the Tangler Crisis of 1905-1906 and the Agadir Crisis of 1911) and the formation of the Balkan League (a military alliance against the Ottoman Empire in 1912, between Serbia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria) were just as responsible. With respect to the first, what is on the historical record is that the events in Morocco almost brought the European heavy weights to war because they were orchestrated by the Germans to drive a wedge between France and Britain, but instead enhanced British hostility towards Germany. Likewise the manner in which the EU and President Obama has accepted the legitimacy of the government in Kiev (which was funded by Western Governments), as being legitimate without elections, supporting one popular rebellion but not recognizing similar popular rebellions in Crimea and in the Eastern Ukraine. 

The second, was implemented by the Austria-Hungary alliance and resulted in removing the possessions of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and divided these territory among them, resulting in Bulgaria turning against Serbia and Greece – their former allies. Eventually the Bulgarians were defeated and forced to give up their claims in Macedonia, shocking the European heavy weights (inclusive of Russian allies of France and Great Britain), but in particular the Austria-Hungary Alliance that vehemently was against a strong Serbian state. This, in the same manner in which the west is against a more powerful growing Russian expansion in Eurasia proper today.

Just like the US and EU sees Russia today, Vienna saw Serbia both as a rival in the Balkans and as a direct threat because it feared that its Balkan neighbors may become the core of a future South-Slavic state (wasn’t happening but this is the fear promulgated by the west today concerning the Balkans). The Balkan Wars made Austro-Hungarian neo-cons even more determined to take concrete action to prevent further strengthening of Serbia.

I say this because what is clear is the fact that the Ukraine is not a member of NATO, has been a thorn in the side of both U.S. and EU developing objectives that would authorize the concerns of the Eastern Ukraine’s and others that lean toward Russia in the Ukraine, for NATO to respond militarily to these recent events albeit not warranted. I wrote about this a few weeks ago but since then, Obama is adding gas t the fire. Then there is the empty token of “I mean business by sending 150 troops to Poland, and getting the Romanian Army to move it’s troops t the Russian border and the Ukrainian Army surrounding a city of 300,000 in the east.

It seems that it doesn’t require a degree in History to see that the same way Germany wanted a preventive war against Russia and France years before WW1, The EU and the US desires a war (preventative or not) for similar reasons, mainly economic. 

With all of these bailouts of European nations over and over again, adding more and more debt to national coffers, if history is any indication, war is and obvious consequence. First because it is the best way for a government to take people’s attention from horrendous economic conditions they are mired in and two, war is always the outcome when there is no global economic recovery. And right now, the world is smack dab in the middle of a global currency war: one in which everyone from Brazil to China is devaluing their currencies in an attempt boost exports and GDP. And again, the last time we saw this happened, the result was WW 2. Why, because our Federal Government and plutocratic elite need wars to take some of the pressure off from our growing debt and exorbitant federal spending.

Currency wars lead to trade wars, which lead to rising inflation and global economic uncertainty and it is a well-known fact that the U.S. government considers economic threats as a basis for going to war. This is why Gaddafi was murdered, because he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to Saddam because he was moving away from the U.S. dominated petro dollar. And as we speak, bilateral currency swaps are on the increase in and no less than 23 nations are moving away from the dollar to Renminbi: what is in the work is that nations are trying to move the dollar completely out, and use Yuan mainly oil and gold trading. This is a no-no from the U.S. perspective and supports the contention that for us, wars have been able to do one thing from the West’s perspective – bring all countries under the umbrella of Western Central Banking.

Supposedly, the Geneva accord between Russia, Ukraine, the US and EU was supposed to make ALL groups to surrender weapons and leave official buildings. But this did not happen. As it stands, tensions in the Donetsk region, are ramping up, especially in the city of Sloviansk – where the entire city (300,000) is occupied by pro-Russian separatist. They say that as the People’s Republic of Donetsk, they are just reacting to military operations launched by the Ukrainian army on Slavyansk. Then there is the small little something-something that the Ukraine energy firm Naftogaz has been asked to pay Russia Gazprom $11 billion for gas already used but unpaid for.

Bush, as Obama today, are just as war-like as Wilhelm II was in Germany when he ascended to the throne in 1888. Likewise, they are just as protective of U.S. banking interest and as such, the way I figure, there are a lot of similarities historically, albeit different names and places, between the past 100 years. Regardless, whether via incompetence or intentionally, the Obama Administration is escalating tensions in the Ukraine and surrounding region as well as with Russia. Fact is that Washington aided in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian leader regardless of his character and presently is encouraging the new leaders in Kiev to all they can to keep the flames going, even violence.

Staff Writer; Torrance Stephens 
 
For more articles by this talented brother do visit; Raw Dawg Buffalo.
 

Comments

2 Responses to “World War 1; June 1914 or June 2014?”
  1. David says:

    Ok, I just did a search on “Compare Summer 1914 to Summer 2014” and this page came up 3rd or 4th in the search page.
    How do You see it as of today after the downing of the plane and the illegals flooding our border all of a sudden?
    Just VERY curious…
    Thank You if either the Author of the page or the commentator above can “fill Me in”.

  2. I think your article on World war 1; June 1914 or June 2014 is very accurate. So many things about the developing conflict in Eastern Europe compare to 1914. Also Mr. Putin’s strategy is similar to the war game plan used in the early 1980s TV movie The Day After. An Eastern European conflict that develops into a use it or lose it nuclear war situation resulting in both sides firing off their nukes. The ultimate miscalculation.
    I hope 2014 is not so dramatic. We can still end this before it get out of hand.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!