Skip to main content

What were the two alliances of World War I?

During World War I, there were two major alliances. These entangling alliances were a factor in making what was a two-country conflict turn into a world war. The two alliances that existed during World War I were the Central Powers and the Allied Powers.


The Central Powers included the countries of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. These countries agreed to help each other if they were attacked. Before World War I began, the next King of Austria-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand, was assassinated by a group of Serbian nationals. Before Austria-Hungary went to war, they asked Germany if they would support Austria-Hungary if another country declared war on them. Germany agreed to support them.


The Allied Powers consisted of France, Great Britain, and Russia. Later, Italy and the United States joined the Allies. Russia and Serbia were close friends. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. With a member of each alliance now having declared war on a member of the opposing alliance, a chain reaction began. Germany declared war on Russia after Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Then France declared war on Germany, and Germany declared war on France. Great Britain also entered the war when Germany invaded Belgium.


This system of alliances was good in offering protection and support to member nations. However, it also helped escalate the conflict in Europe into a world war very quickly.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more