>>24858775
>Explain how the assassination of an Austrian archduke by a Serbian nationalist
If you actually think the inciting incident for WWI was the real "cause" of WWI then you are woefully ignorant.
By 1900, the principal colonial divisions of the world by the major imperialist powers had been solidified and these divisions led to some imperialist powers (most notably Germany, but also Russia, Italy, Austria-Hungary, etc.) in an objectively weaker state than other imperialist powers (most notably Britain and France). This situation DIRECTLY led to the military expansionism and buildup of the Great Powers as well as the interlocking alliance system that sparked the war. Political and economic control over territory and resources not only in Europe, but Africa and Asia, would directly determine which major powers prospered and which faltered. In the 20th century, those with the highest degree of industrial power (which is dependent on vast control of land, resources, and labor) were the ones with the highest degree of geopolitical power. This is what I meant by the simple observation that WW1 had "everything to do with markets" and it's why I quoted Lenin.
I haven't gone into the specific economic and material motives of each major imperialist power in this post since they were enormously varied, but, to give some brief examples: Germany wanted to expand into the Middle East (principally Persia) and undermine the economic power of British control of the Suez Canal. Italy was mainly interested in gaining control over Balkan territories controlled by Austria-Hungary, as was Russia. France chiefly wanted to annex Alsace-Lorraine, which had been taken by Germany several decades earlier and majorly weakened French industrial power due to the loss of a huge iron and steel hub.
In conclusion: Fuck off, you don't know anything about anything, kys
