Talk:European History/World War I

The rise and fall of Nationalism is so impressive that I continue to research what difference Nationalism could have made if applied without religion and race as a demorilizing basis for Nationalism. To me without Nationalistic values, countries will implode over time and just like Rome and currently the moral decay within the US, there is a lack of guidence and resolve within the country to stay loyal to your country.

Nationalism can work and should be a main focus of country education and direction.


 * Nationalism causes violence and economic differences. Making a distinction between "us" and "them" always leads to segregation, persecution and sometimes genocide. I don't see why powerful countries should survive in modern days either; if the economic differences in the world can be resolved, powerful states will only cause problems. In fact, some aspects of current powerful states (specially the US federal state) are a great obstacle for the general development of humanity.


 * About this page of the book, I wanted to suggest a change of the names "March Revolution" and "November Revolution" to the more common February and October Revolutions respectively.--200.82.110.124 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In this passage: "Vladimir Lenin realized that the time had come to seize the revolution. He authored the "April Theses," in which he promised peace with the Central Powers, redistribution of the land, transfer of the factories to the owners, and the recognition of the Soviets as the supreme power in Russia. In this sense, the November Revolution was led by Lenin rather than being an overall coup by the workers, and thus the November revolution cannot be dubbed a true Marxist revolution." Shouldn't it read "transfer of the factories to the workers?"

Russia
Pre-war material on Russia moved to the previous chapter, on Empire, where it is a better fit. 62.25.106.209 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)