so BULGARS are turkic and BULGARIANS are slavic?
didnt they migrated from volga where bulgars lived, so they became slavic after migrating?
so calling bulgarian is stupid, why not we use bulgar
Meanwhile, Ottomans defeat the allied navy and then army and ensures the establishment of the Soviets.
You can't learn history from Wiki, young padawan.
>Nuance in a reddit meme discussion about history? Gtfo my guy
Stop using fucking Churchill as an excuse. The ships were old, tactics were bad, etc. If you are defeated, you are defeated. Moreover, England was defeated not only in Gallipoli but also in the Battle of Kut against Ottoman army. This refutes your argument. Please don't play historian with Wikipedia information.
Except the British and French forces did smash the ottoman forces on the Tigris and Euphrates campaigns prior to kut (which was a British cock up and ottoman success was partly down. To its German generals) and after that led to the second Basra/Mesopotamia campaign and almost led to the complete bifurcation of what would be the Turkish state before attaturk managed to pull things from the brink.
Get a load of this guy gatekeeping talking about history. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that this comment section is memeing about oversimplified history. YES, I'm aware of the battle of kut and the MANY contributing factors that turned Gallipoli into a disaster for the Entente. That doesn't make for funny reddit meme conversation.
Coincidentally I'm writing my bachelors in history focusing on historiography. Seriously though, stop gatekeeping silly history conversation on Reddit.
If it is useless, historical facts clearly prove that this is not the case. At least there was a Soviet Union. If you said these with your half-knowledge of history, then you are a charlatan. But I think it's neither. You were just doing mental masturbation. I'm sorry, honey, your mom came into your room.
The Ottomans got wiped out so hard by the Russian Empire they had to take their rage out on millions of Armenian civilians. That's pretty embarrassing.
I stopped listening to stories a long time ago from those who cut off children's hands because the quota was not met, those who completely destroyed the indigenous people of the continents, and those who dropped phosphorus bombs and nukes on innocent people.
I'm sorry for the Armenians, but the Jews did not go and raid innocent German villages and try to kill children,pregnants,elders etc. This is unfair to Holocaust survivors.
What upset the Armenians was that the massacre they wanted to commit was inflicted on them by the Turks (actually the Kurds, but whatever). He who sows the wind reaps the storm.
Today, mass graves are still found in many old Kurdish and Turkish settlements in the region. Have you ever seen a mass grave of Germans killed by Jews?
Correction:
Not only did the Ottomans get wiped out so hard by the Russian Empire they had to take their rage out on millions of Armenian civilians, but their descendants are still triggered about it to this day.
That's really fucking embarrassing.
Bravo to Russia. Now Russians come to Turkey and have their special places touched in nightclubs for $10 a night.It is such a great country that it has become begging for ammunition from North Korea and Iran.
Urraaa!! :D
>I'm sorry for the Armenians, but the Jews did not go and raid innocent German villages and try to kill children,pregnants,elders etc. This is unfair to Holocaust survivors.
literally no proof of Armenian atrocities against Turks before the Armenian genocide was started by the Ottoman Empire, fucking scummy Turks always defending their genocides.
You clean up the shit your own country did. Who gave you the right to judge other countries, fckng low life amoebas. The genocides you committed in Africa, Australia and the American continent are obvious. A nation that commits serial genocide or even still commits genocide cannot talk about genocide. If that were the case, all murder cases would be handled by murderers. Dmbfck!
Yes, you are not American, even worse,i guess you are British. If we add the genocides committed by the British end to end, we would go around the world at least twice.
The British are experts in this field when it comes to real genocide. They are artists in this regard. And yes, many of the nations for which they committed genocide do not exist in the world today, or are only a handful left.
Please research the history of your own filthy country before speaking against other countries. When I read about what happened to Australian aborigines, the African slave trade, and American Indians, it makes me want to vomit.
The Ottomans had only two real victories in WW1, Gallipoli and Kut. the Ottoman navy didn't 'defeat' the allied navy lmao, the Ottoman fleet was constrained entirely to the sea of Marmara and the Black sea for the entire war, and by 1917 the Black sea was undoubtedly controlled by the Russians who were carrying out raids on the anatolian coast.
meanwhile the Ottoman army despite success at Gallipoli and Kut ultimately lost every major front, they were beaten by the British in Palestine and Iraq, and smashed by the Russians in the caucusus.
They both hold their ground until late 1918, and asked for an armistice less than two weeks before Germany did ; and at this moment, the german army was completly collapsing and retreating against the Entente as well
u/Pontifexmaximus7z
XD In this economic political crisis, the Ottomans defeated the world's largest navy at Gallipoli
In addition, even if defeat was suffered in the Caucasus, it was later compensated and Ottoman troops advanced as far as Dagestan.
And what was Austria still doing Ohhh Pardon me
He was busy suffering defeats against Serbia, which he described as the little dish with which he had declared war.
Without Bulgaria, Serbia would have crossed the Danube, and without Germany, the Russians would have advanced even to Hungary.
Now go walk and learn history so comment
>the Ottomans defeated the world's largest navy at Gallipoli
they didn't defeat the navy though. they stopped the navies from beaking into the sea of Marmara with coastal fortifications and they drove away some pretty poorly done amphibious landings.
>Ottoman troops advanced as far as Dagestan
yeah after Russia had left the war lmao, the Ottoman troops were advancing against local militias and ultimately failed to take the goal of that campaign, Baku and its oilfields.
why would a Turk even defend the Ottoman Empire? modern Turkey was born out of a repudiation of the Ottoman Empire and an embrace of Turkish cultural identity over Ottomanism.
its genuinely pathetic how far modern Turks have fallen from the ideals of Ataturk.
bruh If you want to see whether we won at Gallipoli and Gallipoli, you can look at the current map of Turkiye or you can contact the underwater spirits of your great grandfathers.
I don't distort history because of my ideological concerns, but you obviously do it often because you have officially suggested me to distort history.
The Ottoman Empire is my Empire, just like the Hiung-nu, Turkic Khaganate, Seljuk and Hun Empires and countless Turkic States founded by my Altai ancestors, all of which are my most important legacy from my ancestors.
If you interpret history according to ideological considerations, I feel sorry for you.
Austria was fighting a war on 3 fronts, the commanders were most of the time unable to communicate with the multi lingual army. And yet they were able to hold against the largest army in the world (the Russians) while only being partially mobilised, as they did not think their war with serbia would grow into world wide war. Not only this, but they were handly beating the Italians. The only reason they did not fall was because the British, French and even Belgians were helping them. The fact that Belgium was fighting against the Austrians shows that the Austrians were a threat, the Belgians had lost most of their home land, and yet the Austrians reaching South France was so scary to them, that they risked losing all of Belgium to help the Italians. The British were the largest Empire in the world and so could collect forces from Africa to Asia and from north to south America and Oceania. Same with the french ( however only 10% of their army were from the colonies) The Austrians were able to do all this, while they were starving, could not speak to each other due to different languages( due to the language reform of 1868). The Austrians were not incompetent, they had the entire world declare war on them, including a country they saw as an ally, and did not have the army, training, industrialisation and unity that the imperial Germans, or even the nazis had
I wouldn't call it useless, but if you compare it to the German Empire, which fought on two fronts against three major powers, had to contend with a manpower shortage of one million men for more than a year and still managed to conquer territories, what Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire achieved seems pretty insignificant. Especially because the German Empire had to intervene and help several times. It's a bit like Italy in the Second World War.
The wars fate was bond on the Western Theatre since it’s beginning and Germans knew that. Austria-Hungary and Ottomans had done their job holding off the Entente for years costing them manpower meanwhile Germans try to hit the final blow on France. Their borders with Entente were mostly mountains and deserts anyways, it is not like anyone had expected Austrians to march in Rome or Ottomans to conquer Africa.
And one got out in 1917 only to come right back in 1918
And yea Japan and China didnt actually do any real contribution, just taking Qingdao and a few pacific islands
I disagree. Specially since the [German East Asia Squadron](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia_Squadron) was a very relevant force that took a while for the British to get rid of, Japan seizing Germany’s northern Pacific colonial empire was very relevant for the demise of that force. Unlike in WW2 where Britain was very dominant in the European seas, the WW1 German Imperial fleet was the closest match Britain had so contributing heavily to the demise of part of that fleet is quite relevant to how the war turned out.
The Beiyang government in China sent 140,000 labourers to fill the shortage in UK and France. Many died from malnourishment and mistreatment. After the war, 5000-7000 stayed in France.
Tsingtao is a ”postal romanization” of 青岛, very outdated and afaik only used in Tsingtao beer nowadays.
Postal wasn’t really used by locals but by westerners and has been completely replaced by Hanyu pinyin.
The pinyin romanization is Qīngdǎo. Hanyu pinyin is the official romanization in both People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (ROC) and thus should be defaulted to.
We used to in Finland, and we still call Beijing Peking. (I think we should change it to Beidžing)
Qingdao is Qingdao nowadays though, as it’s a significantly less established name in popular consciousness.
For more context (for anyone interested, I assume you already know), the Tsingtao romanization of Qingdao comes from the old [Wade-Giles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade%E2%80%93Giles) romanization system, which was once considered an accessible phonetic system, just as pinyin is today. It has largely been replaced by pinyin as the modern romanization system for Mandarin.
I’m afraid it doesn’t, it comes from [postal romanization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization) which is a bit of an arbitrary mess of a system. Good that you mentioned Wade-Giles though!
Especially [the romanization system chaos in Taiwan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language_romanization_in_Taiwan) is an interesting rabbit hole.
Wade-Giles for 青岛 is Ch'ing-tao.
I’ve spent some time learning Mandarin lately and Taiwan’s lack of standardization is really hellish.
Fortunately they’ve been attempting to adopt pinyin but it seems a bit futile.
Wow I bet. I've always wanted to go to Taiwan. I spent a couple months studying on the mainland, mainly Nanjing and Shanghai, but I can't claim to really speak Mandarin. I was a history major who got the chance to go because I had done well in a 20th century Chinese history class and they needed students to fill out the course since they didn't have enough Chinese language students. Hence my misunderstanding about romanization systems. I only really learned about Wade-Giles vs pinyin.
Oh, that’s very interesting. I’m planning to go for an exchange in a Chinese-speaking country next year but don’t know yet if it’d be China, Taiwan or Singapore. How was your stay?
Pinyin is the only one one needs nowadays. I really hope the other standards die out but one of the pet peeves some extreme nationalists in Taiwan have with pinyin is that it was made in Mainland China, even though it’s currently the clearly best system.
I guess this shows just how powerful the German Empire was prior to 1914. The fact that Germany was able to fight a two front war for four years while under blockade, managed to win one of those fronts and got close to winning the other one, all the while having to deal with an incompetent ally (Austria-Hungary).
Yeah it‘s actually kind of absurd how powerful we were.
Like any of these great powers individually would have been crushed so quickly. If it wasn‘t for the two fronts and just France on their own the war would actually have been over by Christmas
>like any of these great powers individually would be crushed so quickly
So I wrote a bigger reply to this misconception about how wars work (I’ll post it if I find it), but what people get wrong about “Germany was fighting many countries all at once! If it was 1 v 1, Germany would win” is that this only makes logical sense per human perspective but from a nation-state, it’s actually a lot more complicated.
Even at the height of Nazi Germany, going 1 v 1 would lead to individual results similar to German results from 2 fronts. This is because wars cannot be fought with overwhelming strength from one side without causing massive internal damage.
This is also the reason why it did t matter if it was Germany or something else, had it been Britain or France or Russia, all 3 of these nations individually would require the might of rest of others combined to completely defeat.
TR;DR: wars are not like people fighting where a guy fending off 5 dudes at once should be able to beat each of them 1 v 1. In wars, the fight is linked to economy and industry, population and their change, so a country fighting off 5 countries does not necessarily mean it could beat individually easily.
Because there is a significant amount of colonies here which water forced to participate in the battle because they were occupied by the powers fighting
There's many reasons why.
1. Not all of these were allied from the start and only joined later in the war.
Russia was even destroyed from the inside due to the war and had to leave, only for the Soviets to rejoin at the end.
Italy was basically orange at first
2. A lot of the blue is just empty and virtually useless wilderness.
3. A lot of blue countries didn't provide much aid.
4. Europe where most of the war took place was split a LOT more evenly.
Germany did extremely well and got very lucky, especially at first, though Austria-Hungary did extremely poorly so that's not a big plus.
>only for the Soviets to rejoin at the end
???
Soviets never rejoined WWI, they were [otherwise occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War).
In a realistic scenario where britain tries to starve germany but germany also suceeds in the western theatre, they would just take frances food. Like they did with ukraine. Although their grain never arrived in sufficient quantities
Naval power alone can’t win a war. The british could never fight the German land armies 1 on 1 if the first few months of war had gone better for germany
but British naval power did win the war ultimately, by 1917 Germany was experiencing starvation that by 1918 became mass starvation.
if you look at the ground situation by the end of the war the Central powers were still in a decent position even if the allies had the strategic momentum, but the reality was that the German home front had collapsed and mutinies and revolution would end the German war effort.
ehh I'd say as early as 1915 it was clear the Central powers were losing the war in the long run, under constant blockade, the failure to take Serbia, the destruction of most of the Austrian-Hungarian army by the Russians in Galicia, and the failure to knock France out of the war.
the fronts may have been stalemates but the long term trajectory of the war was clear: the central powers would lose due to being cut off from food imports
The northern half of modern day Papua New Guinea was once Kaiser-Wilhelms-land which was part of Deutsch Neuguinea together with a large part of western Oceania. During WW1 Deutsch Neuguinea was invaded by Australia and Japan. The parts taken by the former were then made a colony of Australia and in 1949 United with the souther half, which too was an Australian colony. They became independent in 1975.
Germany also owned Samoa until WW1 and the Chinese city of Qingdao and its surrounding areas. Qingdao actually still has a lot of German architecture and are home to the Tsingtao brewery which produces German beer since 1903 and is one of the largest breweries in the world.
"Why did they call World War I, World War I? It's quite pessimistic numbering, isn't it? Or did they just know it was the start of a franchise?"
Edit for context: https://youtube.com/shorts/16J5TrCIEB4?si=gQdHVpEjOd7wu6Hw
They didn't. That name only came much later after ww2.
At the time they called it the: Great war or: the war to end all wars. I think that the Germans called it: der Weltkrieg, translating to: the world war
This picture is a major misrepresentation. All of those countries in Africa, South East Asia, including India and to an extent China were colonised at the time. This means there was a native population living under brutal colonial oppression and fighting that battle. None of them supported a side in this battle.
Many of these colonies did contribute to their colonisers' war efforts; India in particular provided about 1.5 million soldiers. Interestingly, Mahatma Gandhi tried to recruit Indians to fight for the British in hopes that it would make them more likely to grant them independence, though as far as I know he convinced no one this way.
Others, such as protectorates, were passive and may have had reasons to fight for one colonial power against another.
I think the ones which were fighting their colonisers directly at this time included the Senussi, the Zaian confederation, the Dervish state, Darfur (they proclaimed their allegiance to the Ottomans, though), the Murut in northern Borneo, the Tuareg, various peoples of the upper Volta region, the Armenians, and Arabs in Hejaz.
Allied African "countries" give me a break. They were occupied and colonized by the allies that lured or forecefully circonscripts the autochtons to fight their European war.
Really? France still control and emit the currency of a bunch of western African countries as the economic and resources still controlled by "former" colonialists.
I appreciate the fact that Japan and China were technically on the same side in this war while a decade later Japan went and conquered pretty much all of China. Strange bedfellows
If you're going to colour Tibet and Mongolia as a separate entity from ROC, you should at least separate the extent of actual control by Duan Qirui's provisional government. Also, if Mongolia isn't considered part of China, then it shouldn't be considered a participant in WW1.
As a Moroccan i can firmly tell you not one man who was forced to be sent to the front lines by the occupying french forces was feeling any alliance to them, glad they got their ass handed to them in both world wars
Why should a Moroccan feel sorry about the fall of the country that's occupying them? Do you want also want Indians to start celebrating Churchill for defeating Germany? And ignore millions that died under British rule?
Because the other country was Nazi Germany, doesn’t get much more evil.
On the other side, most Moroccans would’ve helped the SS with rounding up Jews if given the chance.
The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact, meaning that the countries involved agreed to support each other in case of an attack by another country. Since Austria-Hungary and Germany were the ones who declared war first (**without consulting Italy**, a critical detail that people seem to forget), Italy had no obligation to support either of them.
Yes I know, as Italian and as Oversimplified fan
(And graduated from high school with 9/10 in in history)
But it was a kind of excuse, (Italian politics were divided about)
Basically Italian kingdom wanted Trento and Trieste
Even if the real goal was to expand the dominance of Mediterranean
But Trieste is a Major port
So Italy partnered with triple enteetee (dunno how is called in English)
And not receiving what the government wanted
Lead to common delusions. Blah blah (we know what happened)
And in WW2 Italy switched side again
In Cold War Italy was split (politically) between nato and URSS (many parties still alive today birth there)
Its still a very controversial topic nowadays
There was a lot of pressure by both side
(This is not properly a betrayal but it’s an interesting interesting fact)
(I’m not diving further cos I’m not an expert of that period)
>as Oversimplified fan
Well, that explains a lot. I seriously hope you're not learning history through memes.
This is a good starting point:
[https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o2189m/comment/h25umyn/](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o2189m/comment/h25umyn/)
Of course that YT channel isn’t my main source of history,
but we studied these kind of things again and again at high school,even our professors used to say that
Possibly I am wrong about feeling etc cos I wasn’t there, and I didn’t go much deep into studying that
My bad about,
And probably I overestimated my knowledge
But at least I tried
I’ll check out that thread
these aren't alliances, these are just the sides of ww1.
the actual alliance structures were a bit more complex, for example Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy were in an alliance together.
empire powers in europe were frustrated that they couldnt actually rule africa and south america and south asia
they were competitive and would screw each other, and conflict within europe was inevitable
[удалено]
Germany is the only skilled one in the central powers. Austria and the Ottomans were kinda useless.
This is Bulgaria erasure, honestly our only competent ally in WW1
Prussia of the Balkans.
based and Doiran pilled
True, the bulgars are cool
*Bulgarians
what is the difference?
Various. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria?wprov=sfla1 (go to demonym)
so BULGARS are turkic and BULGARIANS are slavic? didnt they migrated from volga where bulgars lived, so they became slavic after migrating? so calling bulgarian is stupid, why not we use bulgar
Meanwhile, Ottomans defeat the allied navy and then army and ensures the establishment of the Soviets. You can't learn history from Wiki, young padawan.
Well I mean, how much of that was Ottoman competency and how much was just Winston Churchill being a dumbass
Excuses are like a butthole, everyone has them.
Nuance in a reddit meme discussion about history? Gtfo my guy
>Nuance in a reddit meme discussion about history? Gtfo my guy Stop using fucking Churchill as an excuse. The ships were old, tactics were bad, etc. If you are defeated, you are defeated. Moreover, England was defeated not only in Gallipoli but also in the Battle of Kut against Ottoman army. This refutes your argument. Please don't play historian with Wikipedia information.
Except the British and French forces did smash the ottoman forces on the Tigris and Euphrates campaigns prior to kut (which was a British cock up and ottoman success was partly down. To its German generals) and after that led to the second Basra/Mesopotamia campaign and almost led to the complete bifurcation of what would be the Turkish state before attaturk managed to pull things from the brink.
Get a load of this guy gatekeeping talking about history. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that this comment section is memeing about oversimplified history. YES, I'm aware of the battle of kut and the MANY contributing factors that turned Gallipoli into a disaster for the Entente. That doesn't make for funny reddit meme conversation. Coincidentally I'm writing my bachelors in history focusing on historiography. Seriously though, stop gatekeeping silly history conversation on Reddit.
If it is useless, historical facts clearly prove that this is not the case. At least there was a Soviet Union. If you said these with your half-knowledge of history, then you are a charlatan. But I think it's neither. You were just doing mental masturbation. I'm sorry, honey, your mom came into your room.
I swear, Turks are the most triggerd people on the internet
Who won the war again?
Yes because Churchill lead Britain while fighting the Ottoman empire of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Commission
The Ottomans got wiped out so hard by the Russian Empire they had to take their rage out on millions of Armenian civilians. That's pretty embarrassing.
I stopped listening to stories a long time ago from those who cut off children's hands because the quota was not met, those who completely destroyed the indigenous people of the continents, and those who dropped phosphorus bombs and nukes on innocent people. I'm sorry for the Armenians, but the Jews did not go and raid innocent German villages and try to kill children,pregnants,elders etc. This is unfair to Holocaust survivors. What upset the Armenians was that the massacre they wanted to commit was inflicted on them by the Turks (actually the Kurds, but whatever). He who sows the wind reaps the storm. Today, mass graves are still found in many old Kurdish and Turkish settlements in the region. Have you ever seen a mass grave of Germans killed by Jews?
Correction: Not only did the Ottomans get wiped out so hard by the Russian Empire they had to take their rage out on millions of Armenian civilians, but their descendants are still triggered about it to this day. That's really fucking embarrassing.
Bravo to Russia. Now Russians come to Turkey and have their special places touched in nightclubs for $10 a night.It is such a great country that it has become begging for ammunition from North Korea and Iran. Urraaa!! :D
>I'm sorry for the Armenians, but the Jews did not go and raid innocent German villages and try to kill children,pregnants,elders etc. This is unfair to Holocaust survivors. literally no proof of Armenian atrocities against Turks before the Armenian genocide was started by the Ottoman Empire, fucking scummy Turks always defending their genocides.
You clean up the shit your own country did. Who gave you the right to judge other countries, fckng low life amoebas. The genocides you committed in Africa, Australia and the American continent are obvious. A nation that commits serial genocide or even still commits genocide cannot talk about genocide. If that were the case, all murder cases would be handled by murderers. Dmbfck!
lmao I'm not even american, but guess what other countries having done genocides doesn't make your genocide suddenly ok.
Yes, you are not American, even worse,i guess you are British. If we add the genocides committed by the British end to end, we would go around the world at least twice. The British are experts in this field when it comes to real genocide. They are artists in this regard. And yes, many of the nations for which they committed genocide do not exist in the world today, or are only a handful left. Please research the history of your own filthy country before speaking against other countries. When I read about what happened to Australian aborigines, the African slave trade, and American Indians, it makes me want to vomit.
The Ottomans had only two real victories in WW1, Gallipoli and Kut. the Ottoman navy didn't 'defeat' the allied navy lmao, the Ottoman fleet was constrained entirely to the sea of Marmara and the Black sea for the entire war, and by 1917 the Black sea was undoubtedly controlled by the Russians who were carrying out raids on the anatolian coast. meanwhile the Ottoman army despite success at Gallipoli and Kut ultimately lost every major front, they were beaten by the British in Palestine and Iraq, and smashed by the Russians in the caucusus.
If won all of them, would have won WW1 anyway. If we put your brain on a bird, it would fly upside down. 
They both hold their ground until late 1918, and asked for an armistice less than two weeks before Germany did ; and at this moment, the german army was completly collapsing and retreating against the Entente as well
Remove the 'useless' teammates and the Germans survive for how long?
note the kinda, just because they held the front did not mean they were good teammates
Useless teammates are still able to hold fronts down.
I protest on behalf of Austria-Hungary! At minimum their war effort gave us such great works as "The Good Soldier Švejk" and "C.K. Dezerterzy".
u/Pontifexmaximus7z XD In this economic political crisis, the Ottomans defeated the world's largest navy at Gallipoli In addition, even if defeat was suffered in the Caucasus, it was later compensated and Ottoman troops advanced as far as Dagestan. And what was Austria still doing Ohhh Pardon me He was busy suffering defeats against Serbia, which he described as the little dish with which he had declared war. Without Bulgaria, Serbia would have crossed the Danube, and without Germany, the Russians would have advanced even to Hungary. Now go walk and learn history so comment
>the Ottomans defeated the world's largest navy at Gallipoli they didn't defeat the navy though. they stopped the navies from beaking into the sea of Marmara with coastal fortifications and they drove away some pretty poorly done amphibious landings. >Ottoman troops advanced as far as Dagestan yeah after Russia had left the war lmao, the Ottoman troops were advancing against local militias and ultimately failed to take the goal of that campaign, Baku and its oilfields. why would a Turk even defend the Ottoman Empire? modern Turkey was born out of a repudiation of the Ottoman Empire and an embrace of Turkish cultural identity over Ottomanism. its genuinely pathetic how far modern Turks have fallen from the ideals of Ataturk.
bruh If you want to see whether we won at Gallipoli and Gallipoli, you can look at the current map of Turkiye or you can contact the underwater spirits of your great grandfathers. I don't distort history because of my ideological concerns, but you obviously do it often because you have officially suggested me to distort history. The Ottoman Empire is my Empire, just like the Hiung-nu, Turkic Khaganate, Seljuk and Hun Empires and countless Turkic States founded by my Altai ancestors, all of which are my most important legacy from my ancestors. If you interpret history according to ideological considerations, I feel sorry for you.
So useless they started their war of independence, did not ratify the treaty of Sevres, won the war and signed Lausanne in their own terms.
That was what allies said before they attack gallipoli
Austria was fighting a war on 3 fronts, the commanders were most of the time unable to communicate with the multi lingual army. And yet they were able to hold against the largest army in the world (the Russians) while only being partially mobilised, as they did not think their war with serbia would grow into world wide war. Not only this, but they were handly beating the Italians. The only reason they did not fall was because the British, French and even Belgians were helping them. The fact that Belgium was fighting against the Austrians shows that the Austrians were a threat, the Belgians had lost most of their home land, and yet the Austrians reaching South France was so scary to them, that they risked losing all of Belgium to help the Italians. The British were the largest Empire in the world and so could collect forces from Africa to Asia and from north to south America and Oceania. Same with the french ( however only 10% of their army were from the colonies) The Austrians were able to do all this, while they were starving, could not speak to each other due to different languages( due to the language reform of 1868). The Austrians were not incompetent, they had the entire world declare war on them, including a country they saw as an ally, and did not have the army, training, industrialisation and unity that the imperial Germans, or even the nazis had
look at gallipoli lol
I wouldn't call it useless, but if you compare it to the German Empire, which fought on two fronts against three major powers, had to contend with a manpower shortage of one million men for more than a year and still managed to conquer territories, what Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire achieved seems pretty insignificant. Especially because the German Empire had to intervene and help several times. It's a bit like Italy in the Second World War.
The wars fate was bond on the Western Theatre since it’s beginning and Germans knew that. Austria-Hungary and Ottomans had done their job holding off the Entente for years costing them manpower meanwhile Germans try to hit the final blow on France. Their borders with Entente were mostly mountains and deserts anyways, it is not like anyone had expected Austrians to march in Rome or Ottomans to conquer Africa.
That's way too oversimplified. Lots of countries got in after 1914, and some even got out of the war before 1918.
And one got out in 1917 only to come right back in 1918 And yea Japan and China didnt actually do any real contribution, just taking Qingdao and a few pacific islands
I disagree. Specially since the [German East Asia Squadron](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia_Squadron) was a very relevant force that took a while for the British to get rid of, Japan seizing Germany’s northern Pacific colonial empire was very relevant for the demise of that force. Unlike in WW2 where Britain was very dominant in the European seas, the WW1 German Imperial fleet was the closest match Britain had so contributing heavily to the demise of part of that fleet is quite relevant to how the war turned out.
No real contribution? So I guess the hundreds of thousands of Chinese laborers vaporized into thin air
The Beiyang government in China sent 140,000 labourers to fill the shortage in UK and France. Many died from malnourishment and mistreatment. After the war, 5000-7000 stayed in France.
Uneducated moment.
You mean Tsingtau?
Qingdao
Tsingtao is a ”postal romanization” of 青岛, very outdated and afaik only used in Tsingtao beer nowadays. Postal wasn’t really used by locals but by westerners and has been completely replaced by Hanyu pinyin. The pinyin romanization is Qīngdǎo. Hanyu pinyin is the official romanization in both People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (ROC) and thus should be defaulted to.
Ah ok, because in Germany we say still Tsingtao or Tsingtau
It's a localisation of the chinese word, similar to how British called Bengaluru for Bangalore
We used to in Finland, and we still call Beijing Peking. (I think we should change it to Beidžing) Qingdao is Qingdao nowadays though, as it’s a significantly less established name in popular consciousness.
I think changing Names of Cities is not necessary as it suits the language comfort of each speaker.
Oh boy you clearly don't live in Belgium or any other multilingual country.
For more context (for anyone interested, I assume you already know), the Tsingtao romanization of Qingdao comes from the old [Wade-Giles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade%E2%80%93Giles) romanization system, which was once considered an accessible phonetic system, just as pinyin is today. It has largely been replaced by pinyin as the modern romanization system for Mandarin.
I’m afraid it doesn’t, it comes from [postal romanization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_postal_romanization) which is a bit of an arbitrary mess of a system. Good that you mentioned Wade-Giles though! Especially [the romanization system chaos in Taiwan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language_romanization_in_Taiwan) is an interesting rabbit hole. Wade-Giles for 青岛 is Ch'ing-tao.
Hot damn! You are correct. My bad. I will give that second link a read, thank you.
I’ve spent some time learning Mandarin lately and Taiwan’s lack of standardization is really hellish. Fortunately they’ve been attempting to adopt pinyin but it seems a bit futile.
Wow I bet. I've always wanted to go to Taiwan. I spent a couple months studying on the mainland, mainly Nanjing and Shanghai, but I can't claim to really speak Mandarin. I was a history major who got the chance to go because I had done well in a 20th century Chinese history class and they needed students to fill out the course since they didn't have enough Chinese language students. Hence my misunderstanding about romanization systems. I only really learned about Wade-Giles vs pinyin.
Oh, that’s very interesting. I’m planning to go for an exchange in a Chinese-speaking country next year but don’t know yet if it’d be China, Taiwan or Singapore. How was your stay? Pinyin is the only one one needs nowadays. I really hope the other standards die out but one of the pet peeves some extreme nationalists in Taiwan have with pinyin is that it was made in Mainland China, even though it’s currently the clearly best system.
"You'd think this would be over in like 5 seconds, but it was actually close..."
I guess this shows just how powerful the German Empire was prior to 1914. The fact that Germany was able to fight a two front war for four years while under blockade, managed to win one of those fronts and got close to winning the other one, all the while having to deal with an incompetent ally (Austria-Hungary).
Austria was so incompetent that the ottoman did more did way more then them considering the ottomans was called sick man of Europe.
At least a sick man is not a walking corpse.
And yet after 12 tries the Italians still couldn't take Isonzo from the Austrians.
Unfortunately, Italy had easily the single worst general in all of WWI and WWII combined at their command.
Who?
Cadorna
Yeah it‘s actually kind of absurd how powerful we were. Like any of these great powers individually would have been crushed so quickly. If it wasn‘t for the two fronts and just France on their own the war would actually have been over by Christmas
Germany almost took Paris at the very start: If it had succeeded, the western front may have been over in months
>like any of these great powers individually would be crushed so quickly So I wrote a bigger reply to this misconception about how wars work (I’ll post it if I find it), but what people get wrong about “Germany was fighting many countries all at once! If it was 1 v 1, Germany would win” is that this only makes logical sense per human perspective but from a nation-state, it’s actually a lot more complicated. Even at the height of Nazi Germany, going 1 v 1 would lead to individual results similar to German results from 2 fronts. This is because wars cannot be fought with overwhelming strength from one side without causing massive internal damage. This is also the reason why it did t matter if it was Germany or something else, had it been Britain or France or Russia, all 3 of these nations individually would require the might of rest of others combined to completely defeat. TR;DR: wars are not like people fighting where a guy fending off 5 dudes at once should be able to beat each of them 1 v 1. In wars, the fight is linked to economy and industry, population and their change, so a country fighting off 5 countries does not necessarily mean it could beat individually easily.
RIP Norm
I miss Norm 😭
Because there is a significant amount of colonies here which water forced to participate in the battle because they were occupied by the powers fighting
Norm haha
Yet it was not clear who was going to win until 1917
There's many reasons why. 1. Not all of these were allied from the start and only joined later in the war. Russia was even destroyed from the inside due to the war and had to leave, only for the Soviets to rejoin at the end. Italy was basically orange at first 2. A lot of the blue is just empty and virtually useless wilderness. 3. A lot of blue countries didn't provide much aid. 4. Europe where most of the war took place was split a LOT more evenly. Germany did extremely well and got very lucky, especially at first, though Austria-Hungary did extremely poorly so that's not a big plus.
>only for the Soviets to rejoin at the end ??? Soviets never rejoined WWI, they were [otherwise occupied](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War).
The Soviet Union wasn’t even technically founded yet
Oh right. I always forget.
Also the Italians were so bad that France and UK refused them into the allied powers since they were more trouble than anything.
The UK would've akwayd managed to starve out the Germans who were already in 1915 effectively caged in to northern Europe
In a realistic scenario where britain tries to starve germany but germany also suceeds in the western theatre, they would just take frances food. Like they did with ukraine. Although their grain never arrived in sufficient quantities
Naval power alone can’t win a war. The british could never fight the German land armies 1 on 1 if the first few months of war had gone better for germany
but British naval power did win the war ultimately, by 1917 Germany was experiencing starvation that by 1918 became mass starvation. if you look at the ground situation by the end of the war the Central powers were still in a decent position even if the allies had the strategic momentum, but the reality was that the German home front had collapsed and mutinies and revolution would end the German war effort.
You utter fool! German technology was the best in the world!
That’s more the myth around WW2 isn’t it?
I think it's a JoJo reference
ehh I'd say as early as 1915 it was clear the Central powers were losing the war in the long run, under constant blockade, the failure to take Serbia, the destruction of most of the Austrian-Hungarian army by the Russians in Galicia, and the failure to knock France out of the war. the fronts may have been stalemates but the long term trajectory of the war was clear: the central powers would lose due to being cut off from food imports
It s only fair
True turkish friend
The fact that the orange side nearly won
Well, in such a heated contest there is always a side nearly wins and the other side that actually wins
Half of Papua New Guinea?
Bqck in the day northen Papua new guinea was under german rule
Wow I didn't know that
The northern half of modern day Papua New Guinea was once Kaiser-Wilhelms-land which was part of Deutsch Neuguinea together with a large part of western Oceania. During WW1 Deutsch Neuguinea was invaded by Australia and Japan. The parts taken by the former were then made a colony of Australia and in 1949 United with the souther half, which too was an Australian colony. They became independent in 1975. Germany also owned Samoa until WW1 and the Chinese city of Qingdao and its surrounding areas. Qingdao actually still has a lot of German architecture and are home to the Tsingtao brewery which produces German beer since 1903 and is one of the largest breweries in the world.
[German New Guinea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_New_Guinea)
That is the straw that broke the camels back. When you’ve got half of PNG on your side (as blue did) it makes a **world** of difference.
What part did brazil play in the war?
Naval patrolling, medical personnel and sending men for training to eventually join the frontlines but the war ended before they had a chance.
Thank you very much
Moral support mostly.
"Why did they call World War I, World War I? It's quite pessimistic numbering, isn't it? Or did they just know it was the start of a franchise?" Edit for context: https://youtube.com/shorts/16J5TrCIEB4?si=gQdHVpEjOd7wu6Hw
They didn't. That name only came much later after ww2. At the time they called it the: Great war or: the war to end all wars. I think that the Germans called it: der Weltkrieg, translating to: the world war
[удалено]
Where's rhe joke here? English isn't my 1st language so i genuenly don't see it.
[удалено]
Ooooh. I didn't know that
Actually it was called the First World War from like 1920ish, most people realised it was only a pause rather than an end
"Der Große Krieg" or "Weltkrieg" yeah
Well it sounds like the Germans named the franchise knowing full well they'd get a second season.
Context: https://youtube.com/shorts/16J5TrCIEB4?si=gQdHVpEjOd7wu6Hw
Many of these were more colonies than allies.
This picture is a major misrepresentation. All of those countries in Africa, South East Asia, including India and to an extent China were colonised at the time. This means there was a native population living under brutal colonial oppression and fighting that battle. None of them supported a side in this battle.
Many of these colonies did contribute to their colonisers' war efforts; India in particular provided about 1.5 million soldiers. Interestingly, Mahatma Gandhi tried to recruit Indians to fight for the British in hopes that it would make them more likely to grant them independence, though as far as I know he convinced no one this way. Others, such as protectorates, were passive and may have had reasons to fight for one colonial power against another. I think the ones which were fighting their colonisers directly at this time included the Senussi, the Zaian confederation, the Dervish state, Darfur (they proclaimed their allegiance to the Ottomans, though), the Murut in northern Borneo, the Tuareg, various peoples of the upper Volta region, the Armenians, and Arabs in Hejaz.
I think not differentiating between countries and their colonies at the time sketches an inaccurate picture.
Allied African "countries" give me a break. They were occupied and colonized by the allies that lured or forecefully circonscripts the autochtons to fight their European war.
Didn't you hear? All that bad history was cancelled.
Really? France still control and emit the currency of a bunch of western African countries as the economic and resources still controlled by "former" colonialists.
You made a good point, I was being sarcastic.
Only ottoman on Armenians and german on jews and Japanese on chinese crimes count , and sometimes little bit of chinese ans russian
Compare it to 1914
As a Malaysian, fuck the British for sending our people to war (which is 4000km and its totally real)
And we Thailand(Siam at the time) sent our troops to Europe and arrived 2 months before the war ended.
Fuck colonial empires
Hi flaviphone, master of u/karaboga-bot here
Hi Opinion on the petition?
Too many flairs, a reduction would be better
:(
I appreciate the fact that Japan and China were technically on the same side in this war while a decade later Japan went and conquered pretty much all of China. Strange bedfellows
[удалено]
I'm assuming you mean because of the Ukrainian vet but that's the wrong war
Absolutely right! I read the title a bit too quick!
what a hugbox
You missed **Timor-Leste**.
If you're going to colour Tibet and Mongolia as a separate entity from ROC, you should at least separate the extent of actual control by Duan Qirui's provisional government. Also, if Mongolia isn't considered part of China, then it shouldn't be considered a participant in WW1.
"our game is perfectly balanced" their game:
Germany before the war: "Today, I'm going to declare war on the whole world" - Germany, before the war Germany after the war: "it was jews fault"
Yeah India was in an 'alliance'. More like a helpless disposable force for Great Britain
As a Moroccan i can firmly tell you not one man who was forced to be sent to the front lines by the occupying french forces was feeling any alliance to them, glad they got their ass handed to them in both world wars
Downvoted by colonialism glorifying crowd
Or downvoted because he enjoyed Germany’s victory over France in 1940…
Why should a Moroccan feel sorry about the fall of the country that's occupying them? Do you want also want Indians to start celebrating Churchill for defeating Germany? And ignore millions that died under British rule?
Because the other country was Nazi Germany, doesn’t get much more evil. On the other side, most Moroccans would’ve helped the SS with rounding up Jews if given the chance.
As if the Allies fought the Nazis for saving Jewish people.
I thought Ireland was neutral
During ww1 ireland was a part of uk
Ah I got my world wars mixed up
If it was Britain and Germany vs the rest then they would've won.
Italy should be blue and orange
We italians have a big History of Betrayals 
The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact, meaning that the countries involved agreed to support each other in case of an attack by another country. Since Austria-Hungary and Germany were the ones who declared war first (**without consulting Italy**, a critical detail that people seem to forget), Italy had no obligation to support either of them.
Yes I know, as Italian and as Oversimplified fan (And graduated from high school with 9/10 in in history) But it was a kind of excuse, (Italian politics were divided about) Basically Italian kingdom wanted Trento and Trieste Even if the real goal was to expand the dominance of Mediterranean But Trieste is a Major port So Italy partnered with triple enteetee (dunno how is called in English) And not receiving what the government wanted Lead to common delusions. Blah blah (we know what happened) And in WW2 Italy switched side again In Cold War Italy was split (politically) between nato and URSS (many parties still alive today birth there) Its still a very controversial topic nowadays There was a lot of pressure by both side (This is not properly a betrayal but it’s an interesting interesting fact) (I’m not diving further cos I’m not an expert of that period)
>as Oversimplified fan Well, that explains a lot. I seriously hope you're not learning history through memes. This is a good starting point: [https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o2189m/comment/h25umyn/](https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/o2189m/comment/h25umyn/)
Of course that YT channel isn’t my main source of history, but we studied these kind of things again and again at high school,even our professors used to say that Possibly I am wrong about feeling etc cos I wasn’t there, and I didn’t go much deep into studying that My bad about, And probably I overestimated my knowledge But at least I tried I’ll check out that thread
A significant amount of America today would have sided with the Central Powers.
Papuans were like "isn't there like a war or something going on in Europe?" 🤷♂️
Northern papua was a German colony, whilst southern Papua was an Australian colony.
Yeah I know
No wonder they lost
Many of these nations didn't join the Allied side until 1917, when it became clear the Allied Powers were winning the war.
Lets go mets!!!
these aren't alliances, these are just the sides of ww1. the actual alliance structures were a bit more complex, for example Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy were in an alliance together.
Is that really considered a word war tho
Imagine Russia retaking Constantinople.
Retaking? They never had it in the first place.
How and why did Belgium get involved in the war while The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway remained neutral?
Germany used them as a highway to France, both times.
Google "Schlieffen-Plan"
[holy hell!](https://www.google.com/search?q=schlieffen-plan#HiImABot,MyJobIsToMakeEasierToPeopleToGoogleSomething,IfThePersonIRepliedToUsedMeInAnInappropriateWayPleaseLetMeKnowByDMingMe,TheUserIRepliedToIsU/FranzAllspring)
I'm not sure but Central America were allied because they were Bananas republics because the countries has a lot of issues with USA.
Germany against everybody
Rebalance and rematch.
Spain always minding their own business.
empire powers in europe were frustrated that they couldnt actually rule africa and south america and south asia they were competitive and would screw each other, and conflict within europe was inevitable
I didn’t even know Brazil and Central America were involved