Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 15 2005, 9:34 AM
Hasnt this already been covered in: "How powerful could Germany have become if..." thread?
Anyway if your talking specfically about responsibility then it comes in two parts (1) Those responsible for the immediate triggers that led to war and (2) Those that created the geo-strategic environment and system of alliances.
(1) Then yes Serbia, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are at fault for the immediate causes but i feel that (2) is more important because it is this build up that made it such a disastrous wide ranging 'global' war instead of a relatively contained Eastern European conflict.
(2) Germany is at the very least 60% at fault for the creation of the geo-strategic circumstances that led to WW1.
And no Britain didnt want to cause a war to 'destroy' her rival Germany because she had most to lose from an expensive conflict. Which she did in the end - absolutely disastrous.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 15 2005, 6:20 PM
If we really wanted war, how come we did not declare it in 1905? We were relatively stronger, the alliance situation was better and we had enough reason to do it...
I do not see that Germany was in any way principal in facilitating this war.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 4:38 AM
"Those who point the finger at germany and germany alone are ignorant. Most likely American Propoganda at its height."
The only ignorance in this thread is found in your post, which is nothing but ill-informed anti-Americanism. Why would it be "American propaganda" that Germany was responsible for WW1 when, 1)not a single American posted anything along those lines in this thread, and 2) America did not enter the war until 1917.
The American Marine Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments.
---Mao Tse Sung to General Song, prior to Chosin Reservoir
This message has been edited by Gyrene on Jun 17, 2005 4:56 AM
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 6:18 AM
Why America allowed Britain to use a blockage on Germany, but didn't allow Germany's unlimited submarine warfare.
USA started war at 1917, obviously this was best timing to get great benefit with smallest cost.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 9:47 AM
Why not 1905? I agree Germany was possibly more powerful on land at this point with Russia having its first revolution and being at war with Japan, Britain not long out of the Boer War and the Entente with France in its infancy it could have made things difficult.
However despite all the jingoism and posturing of the time war was not something anyone wanted. It took those trigger events and the alliance system to fling everyone into conflict. In 1905 Germany hoped to get what it wanted out of Britain by building a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy. An arms race is cheaper than war so this was tried.
Germany did try to influence the world stage at Algeciras and Algiers but the Entente held strong at this point and Germany had to back down. Even if they wanted war im not sure it would have been an option in 1905 as despite international arguments Germany was still trying to get along with Britain.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 12:57 PM
Had Bismark stayed in power, things would had been different.
The Kaiser's clumsiness it mostly responsible of what happened, putting Europe in a so explosive situation.
Well I don't think France wanted to fight Germany frontally, but something is sure is that we would have never let Germany have a rest as long as they occupîed our Alsace and Lorraine territory the Prussians had took us in the 1870 war.
I've read some family school book from before WWI, for male and female as well, and I tell you that's impressive. Alsace and Lorraine was everywhere: histoty and geography books, songs, everywhere.
I have no idea how France would have been able to take Alsace and Lorraine back alone though as Germany was much more powerfull than us. But it happened our interest and the British one were the same, the German diplomacy should have noticed that and avoid confrontation with both at the same time. Not only they were unable to avoid that but they also managed to have the Russian against them. The Germans have only them to blame to have put themselves in such a situation.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 2:59 PM
GB France Germany by 30 % each ."Pro-british" czar Romanov responsible for the other 10 %.Germans activity in L.America and a lot of their investements in S.East Asia were forced "GB-France-Russia" to make something in order to stop them
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 5:40 PM
"Why not 1905? I agree Germany was possibly more powerful on land at this point with Russia having its first revolution and being at war with Japan, Britain not long out of the Boer War and the Entente with France in its infancy it could have made things difficult. "
As I said, the perfect time to strike if we had been hell-bent on war.
"However despite all the jingoism and posturing of the time war was not something anyone wanted. It took those trigger events and the alliance system to fling everyone into conflict. In 1905 Germany hoped to get what it wanted out of Britain by building a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy. An arms race is cheaper than war so this was tried."
Germany was a satisfied power as Bismarck said. Wilhelm's main fault was that he was a true imperialist and moralist. His personality flaws were unhelpful as well. And this at a time when it became apparent that colonies were a drain... Rationally the best thing we could have done was sell all the colonies. We basically controlled Europe economically and militarily, why did we need colonies...
"Germany did try to influence the world stage at Algeciras and Algiers but the Entente held strong at this point and Germany had to back down. Even if they wanted war im not sure it would have been an option in 1905 as despite international arguments Germany was still trying to get along with Britain."
Exactly, just as in 1914, there were elements that wanted war and others that didn't want it. Germany was not special in any case.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 17 2005, 5:49 PM
"Had Bismark stayed in power, things would had been different.
The Kaiser's clumsiness it mostly responsible of what happened, putting Europe in a so explosive situation."
True about Bismarck, wrong about Wilhelm. Yes, he was very clumsy and shares the blame. But why do we never hear about Russia's and Italy's downright treacherous alliance-swappings that destabilised Europe. Or Russia's and Austria's constant messing in the Balkans (that was the very reason for the war). Or Britains two-faced approach to our efforts at mediation that WERE offered. Or France's militant and aggressive behaviour. It doesn't matter if it was justified or not, making it clear that you will one day attack creates tension.
"Well I don't think France wanted to fight Germany frontally, but something is sure is that we would have never let Germany have a rest as long as they occupîed our Alsace and Lorraine territory the Prussians had took us in the 1870 war."
True, one of many reasons for the tensions. And A-L was certainly not clearly French. It is pretty debatable whose territory it is, France after all only got it from Germany the last time after the 30 years war.
"I've read some family school book from before WWI, for male and female as well, and I tell you that's impressive. Alsace and Lorraine was everywhere: histoty and geography books, songs, everywhere.
I have no idea how France would have been able to take Alsace and Lorraine back alone though as Germany was much more powerfull than us. But it happened our interest and the British one were the same, the German diplomacy should have noticed that and avoid confrontation with both at the same time. Not only they were unable to avoid that but they also managed to have the Russian against them. The Germans have only them to blame to have put themselves in such a situation."
An attack on A-L even with British help would be insanity. It is ideal defensive ground (I live very close to it) and was fortified for over 40 years. On top of the fact that in WWI the defense had a tremendous advantage.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 12:29 PM
But why do we never hear about Russia's and Italy's downright treacherous alliance-swappings that destabilised Europe.
Don't start putting the blame on Italy. Italy didn't even withdraw from the Triple Alliance until Austria invaded Serbia. It did not destablize Europe.
"Everyone has the jitters, seeing objects swimming about at night, and hearing movements on ships' bottoms. It must stop!"- Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, Commander in Chief of Britain's Mediterranean Fleet
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 12:56 PM
Whilst no one single country is responsible for WW1 i believe Germany or at least the German leadership at the time is at least half responsible for the war. Other countries make up the rest as they also contributed to the growing international tension and military build up that led to the formation of the alliance power blocs.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 3:05 PM
"Don't start putting the blame on Italy. Italy didn't even withdraw from the Triple Alliance until Austria invaded Serbia. It did not destablize Europe."
It had a part in it, just like about any nation in Europe, that's why I am so opposed to that idea-turned-truth that Germany was responsible for WWI.
Other than the Versailles treaty /dictate whatever you want to call it, where is the UNBIASED proof that Germany did want that war and that it was responsible for it more than others.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 3:07 PM
"Whilst no one single country is responsible for WW1 i believe Germany or at least the German leadership at the time is at least half responsible for the war. Other countries make up the rest as they also contributed to the growing international tension and military build up that led to the formation of the alliance power blocs."
My problem is not admitting guilt, but it is illogic that we would incite war at this time when we had the chance to do it earlier with far better chances.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 3:25 PM
this is not about Germany 'wanting' war or making anyone feel guilty, i never said that at all. most countries will go out of their way to avoid it. Germany had growing industry and economy, Britain had a global empire and influence why put these at risk with war? War is costly so countries dont reguarly sign up for it.
all im saying is that despite the fact that most countries dont want war they at the time they would still try to get as much as they can short of actual conflict. For example the Fashoda incident was an example of France trying to extend its African empire, they would have if Britain had let them get away with it but they were not willing to go to war over it.
Britain wanted to maintain the status quo, Germany wanted a larger global empire. Germany started creating a large fleet to accomplish this so Britain increased her own fleet and went into alliances to counteract these moves. Whilst im sure there were those in both militaries who may have wanted a showdown both countries did not want war.
The triggers in the Balkans and the alliance systems led to war. The military build up and international tensions that contributed to this situation were largely the fault of Germany trying to exercise its influence and the nationalism of the time prevented anyone from stepping back.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 24 2005, 8:05 PM
It had a part in it, just like about any nation in Europe, that's why I am so opposed to that idea-turned-truth that Germany was responsible for WWI.
Italy did have a part in it yes, but the withdrawal from the Triple Alliance had nothing to do with it because the war had already started. And I don't agree that Germany was responsible for World War I. Austria was, plain and simple.
"Everyone has the jitters, seeing objects swimming about at night, and hearing movements on ships' bottoms. It must stop!"- Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, Commander in Chief of Britain's Mediterranean Fleet
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 26 2005, 4:37 AM
The actual nation responsible would have to the Austro-Hungarian Empire who in it's zeal to expand was able to use the assasination as a convenient excuse to invade a neighboring country.
Germany, much like Britain or France or Italy was a bystander at the outset. Ironically, the various cooperative treaties expected to prevent the outbreak of a major conflict were the very causes for the war's expansion. Germany, like Britain and France, simply responded to it's pre-war obligation to act in mutual defense of another country at war.
Germany came to be the beginner of the war in many minds becuase it was the strongest country involved on it's side and because it ceded the official surrender at the end of the war. What happened to Germany ala the Versaille Treaty is still a terrible tragedy which simply brought about another war, but that's a different thread I suppose.
As for the post above about the U.S. jumping in at it's convenience....I better do some educatin'. Wilson abhored the war and was vehemently opposed to getting involved-even after the sinking of American liners by German U-Boats. Wilson refused all pleas for direct assistance from G.B. and France until 1917 as the dramatic losses for both became critical. The front was a bloodbath and the war of attrition it spawned was costing the British and especially the French dearly. France was genuinely concerned that an entire generation of it's society was at risk due to the loss of males from the population. Germany wasn't faring quite as bad and as long as they could continue to inflict the damage on allied personnel that they were, it looked like they just might prevail in forcing the allies to the peace table with some hard-to-swallow terms. It was as this was becoming clear that Wilson finally consented to U.S. involvement in an effort to help primarily the French in what was increasingly becoming a questionable situation. The fresh infusion of American troops and equipment was enough to break the deadlock and bring Germany and it's allies to the table.....where they were subsequently raped at the bargaining table by Anglo/French officials bent on punishment and revenge rather than peace rebuilding.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 26 2005, 10:23 AM
@JoeinTX
I'm affraid you're all wrong, your vew correspond to the same "official" history that says for example that the US won the 1812 war but don't correspond to reality.
Open the eyes, what you say is ridiculous on international forums: The US involvement became more than symbolic, military speaking, only in the last 4 months of the war while the French and British had already blocked the big German offensives of spring 1918.
The 14 may 1918 Foch take the command of all the allied armies. Since April 170 000 Americans each month arrive in France. The Schneider Tank is operational since the 16 avril 1917 on the Berry-au-Bac front. The new light tank Renult in on the front since the 30 march 1918 and starts its first fight on the Villers-Cotterêts forest. A lot of observation and combat planes like the superior Spad XIII are sent on line. At least 270 tanks and 1.000 planes are ready end may. The German offensive is largelly blocked by Mangin counter attacks with tanks on the Matz and south west Soissons.
The 15 july Ludendorff lauch a new attack on the Marne. The Germans engaged 57 divisions in this ultimate action. The French and the Americans are surprised but had prepared 50 divisions to ripost. At the East of Reims, the Germans occupy the first French position. But are crushed by the 4th army of general Gouraud who had predicted the scenario. At the West of Reims, the enemy win a little ground on the 5th army but the 18, a brutal Franco-American counter attack on its flank (6th and 10th army with 375 tanks), from the Marne to the Aisne, force the enemy to retreat.
From the second Marne victory to the end victory: 18 July - 11 November
The 18 July offensive force the enemy to withdraw to the Vesle : it is "the second victory of the Marne" and the end of the last hopes for the Kaiser. Then, British, French, Belgium, Americans, didn't let any rest to the invaders. As in 1914, the Germans, after having crossed back the Marne, withdraw on the Aisne and the Vesle. This second battle of the Marne is the beginning of the big allie offensive, commanded by Foch, and witch will last 4 month, from the 18 July to 11 November. The 8 August, the Brits and the French, supported by 360 tanks, punctured again the German lines in the South and East of Amiens. This time, the victory changed of camp ; this is "day of mourning" for the German army (after the expression of Ludendorff). Foch do not let the deconcerted enemy the possibility to rest and reconstitute its reserves. By "a methodical battle enlargement" he multiply the attacks on all parts of the front. The Germans are always forced to withdraw under enveloping threat. First the commander in chief destroy the "pockets" created by the German victories of spring. The battles of Château-Thierry, Amiens, Saint-Mihiel, etc. The Hindenburg line is attacked and forced in September and October. The allies can at last enter as victor in Saint-Quentin, Cambrai and Laon. At last, by a "concentrical offensive of all the allies army", Foch, that became Marchal the 6 August, started the kicking of the whole German armies on the Ardennes to outflank it and force its capitulation.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 26 2005, 11:39 PM
Uh....I really don't understand what you're trying say here?
"I'm affraid you're all wrong, your vew correspond to the same "official" history that says for example that the US won the 1812 war but don't correspond to reality..."
I don't believe nor have I ever claimed that the U.S. won the War of 1812. But, I assume you must be referencing the same book of misguided stereotypes that would have me believing that you are sitting in front of the computer wearing a beret, eating nasty cheese, while not having taken a bath this week. Hmm?
You know there really aren't a whole lot of differences between what I posted and what you replied with, so I'm going to try to figure it out.
"The US involvement became more than symbolic, military speaking, only in the last 4 months of the war while the French and British had already blocked the big German offensives of spring 1918...."
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. The U.S. involvement came very late in the war and was essentially "the straw that broke the camel's back" and turned the tide clearly in the Allies favor.
Also, you post a great deal about stopping German offensives, but that is exactly the point I made above about the front becoming a stalemate by 1918. There wasn't much movement on either side, attrition was taking it's toll, and something had to be done or the war would end with a treaty of equal terms.....unthinkable to the French and British. Again, the quote reference that you have at the bottom of your post is pretty much what I said as well.
Maybe you misunderstood what was saying in previous post... I don't know.
BTW, a large part of my understanding of WW1 was taught to me over several semesters by a European history professor in college. He was German, but had spent many years living and teaching in France as well before coming to the U.S.....
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 26 2005, 11:59 PM
JoeinTX I don't believe nor have I ever claimed that the U.S. won the War of 1812. But, I assume you must be referencing the same book of misguided stereotypes that would have me believing that you are sitting in front of the computer wearing a beret, eating nasty cheese, while not having taken a bath this week. Hmm?
yes
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. The U.S. involvement came very late in the war and was essentially "the straw that broke the camel's back" and turned the tide clearly in the Allies favor.
may be. that was a great moral boost and lets not underestimate the importance of moral.
Also, you post a great deal about stopping German offensives, but that is exactly the point I made above about the front becoming a stalemate by 1918. There wasn't much movement on either side, attrition was taking it's toll, ...
that's where you're wrong and that's what I wanted to correct: the front started to move again in July 1918 after the failure of German's offensives. In 4 months the allies won more ground than in 4 years.
and something had to be done or the war would end with a treaty of equal terms.....unthinkable to the French and British. Again, the quote reference that you have at the bottom of your post is pretty much what I said as well.
lets face it: with all his good will, Wilson fvcked our victory.
"As for the combatants, the studies that some of my students - of which I have pleasure to see the presence in this room - carried out show that the French Army although wearies is ready to continue the engagements and that it dreams to enter to Germany to make it feel the weight of the war. They also show that the losses are decreasing"
and General De Gaulle in the first volume of his "Memories of hope":
"war makes born and die States... If the gigantic effort provided by our people at the time of the First World War could open the door of the revival to us, we closed it ourselves in missing to complete our military victory... But in the hasty stop of the fight which, November 11, 1918, occurred at the time when we were going triumphantly to gather the fruits of the victory, for how much had counted the voice of the Anglo-Saxons?""
All studies show it in 1918 the French were ready and in accord with Petain and Joffre refused the armistice. It was imposed to them after the Wilson threatened to withdraw and conviced the British to accept it as well.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 5:49 AM
"lets face it: with all his good will, Wilson fvcked our victory...."
Well, another "thank you very much" from the French. Well, the next time that you're on the verge of a tremendous overwhelming victory against the enemy, we'll just stand back...okay?
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 10:28 AM
JoeinTX "lets face it: with all his good will, Wilson fvcked our victory...."
Well, another "thank you very much" from the French. Well, the next time that you're on the verge of a tremendous overwhelming victory against the enemy, we'll just stand back...okay?
ROFL that's amazing of stupidity.
Okay, now, please can you tell me ? considering I'm gratefull to America, how do you think I should have formulated it without hurting emotional people ?
F**** the most furious of all was Pershing.
You'd better try to prove me wrong instead of using ridiculous emotional arguments. This point of vew is debatable, and Reaven don't agree. There already was a thread about this periode.
This point of vew is little known because:
- it's a short period: 4 months,
- the French don't want to look ungratefull (surprised ?) and only want to show France and America fighting shoulder to shoulder what is true. The F**** up is political,
- the American like to think they won the war and saved France and Britain,
- the Brits are probably shame of there mistake (if it's a mistake....),
- the Germans didn't have a single window broken because of the war and tried to make the people believe that the defeat was because of a communist plot that back stabbed the soldiers.(Hitler propaganda)
All in all, those that know the best are the French and the Brits: we agree, after the failure of the German offensives of spring 1918, the German's situation was hopeless.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 11:47 AM
I know, why do the yanks always think they 'saved someones ass' all the time when they join wars for their own interest and then expect gratitude for it?!
Britain and France would have invaded Germany in 1918 with or without the Americans. They only came along once they had seen who the victors would be.
Quote:The fresh infusion of American troops and equipment was enough to break the deadlock and bring Germany and it's allies to the table.....where they were subsequently raped at the bargaining table by Anglo/French officials bent on punishment and revenge rather than peace rebuilding.
I think you should start by opening an history buddy before commenting. The maericans didn't break any deadlock, the american contributions on the battelfield was nigh to negligible. The americans were inexperienced and arrived way too late and was equipped mainly with french and british weaponry.
The last german offensive has failed and germany was imploding due to famine and instability. However with american man power at the disposal of the allies, germany was forced to surrender. But in all, WW2 is the fault of the american, they suggest leniency. Whereas France and britain was pushing for total seperation of germany into german states. Because of the american stupidity and pacifism,the German recovered and made war again. WW1 was supposed to be France's last war, and the american fvck us in the end. They even promised to help us if germany attacked as a compromise, did they came at onset, they only entered the war until they were attacked by the jap. And again, the liberation of France has more to do with the russian and the british than the americans. THey were just there when the germans were exhausted to claim victory. I'm disgusted, that's why France's should never again trust anyone and never again shall we interfere as long as we are not directly under attack. Revenge shall be ours in due time. rewrite the history book, our enemies were never the germans.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 1:37 PM
"- the Germans didn't have a single window broken because of the war and tried to make the people believe that the defeat was because of a communist plot that back stabbed the soldiers.(Hitler propaganda) "
It wasn't Hitler propaganda and despite being non PC today, that statement is true to an extent. Had we gone to the maximum, you would have spent a year and many thousand soldiers more to advance and defeat us militarily.
So it was partially Wilson's deed that the war stopped in November 1918. And no, I don't think the Americans won the war.
"All in all, those that know the best are the French and the Brits: we agree, after the failure of the German offensives of spring 1918, the German's situation was hopeless."
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 1:47 PM
"Wilson abhored the war and was vehemently opposed to getting involved-even after the sinking of American liners by German U-Boats. Wilson refused all pleas for direct assistance from G.B. and France until 1917 as the dramatic losses for both became critical."
Now, now, that's not the whole truth...
The US kept shut when British PASSANGER ships carried vital war materials to Britain, using the civilians, also Americans as shields.
The US policy of cash and carry was stacked vehemently against Germany, since we had no hope of being able to sail to Germany when Britain had the better fleet. A policy where neutral US ships could sail and trade with Germany was never implemented.
The US (that so vehemently proclaimed tha freedom of the seas) allowed Britain to maintain an illegal blockade against continental Europe, not only Germany, but also Holland and Denmark.
That's just some reasons, I didn't even mention the biggest, money.
The US may not have wanted to go to war with Germany, but it was clearly not neutral even from the start.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 1:51 PM
Erix Revenge shall be ours in due time. rewrite the history book, our enemies were never the germans.
As much I agree with the rest of your post as much I think this one is pushing things way too far.
Our enemies were never the Germans, correct, never the Americans too. Rather the Prussians in fact but unfortunatelly since 1814 and mostly since 1870 Prussian militarism and stupid brutality contaminated Germany so ..
Also, lets not underestimate the Americans as much as they overestimates themselves. That's not fair. The big war machine did its part of the job. Also the clever and fair way they worked with the allies to reconstruct our countries, Marshall plan, must not be forgotten.
Apart of that, it's true that we were reminded the hard way what we should never have forgotten: to never count on an other country for our defense.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 2:01 PM
"Our enemies were never the Germans, correct, never the Americans too. Rather the Prussians in fact but unfortunatelly since 1814 and mostly since 1870 Prussian militarism and stupid brutality contaminated Germany so .."
Hehe, quite a statement to accuse Prussia of militarism when since it's forming France was about the most militant and aggressive power in Europe. 30 years war, when you rampaged through an entirely devastated Western Germany and destroyed the few things remaining. Napoleon, who wanted to turn Germany into a bunch of vassal states. I would say France's time had come. You were far from angels.
And let's remember that France had quite a part in the cause of the 1870 war. You actually demanded Prussia to back down, that's not the diplomatic way at all. Bismarck engineered the conflict, but you didn't back down either, so it was partly your choice too.
Another nice thing. Look at the percentage of population in the armed forces and the expenditure in % in 1914 to see just who was more militant...
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 2:35 PM
Reaver180 Hehe, quite a statement to accuse Prussia of militarism when since it's forming France was about the most militant and aggressive power in Europe.
?? are you kidding ? France almost never agressed anybody but was always agressed from all parts. If France was agressive I don't think the divided German states we always had as neighbours since Charlemagne would have survived and prospered so well.
30 years war, when you rampaged through an entirely devastated Western Germany and destroyed the few things remaining.
well like you said, Germany was already well destroyed when French troops got involved despite France did its best to stay out. But France had no choice as our interest were threatened notably by the Spaniards and the Habsbourg. But definitelly no, the 30 year war is not the right example as everybody got involved in this mess: German states, Spain, Austria, Danemark, Sweden, Holland, everybody but Russia and Britain.
Franckly look like an excuse to me.
Napoleon, who wanted to turn Germany into a bunch of vassal states. I would say France's time had come.
there was NO vassal in post Revolution France. Some of German states had been incorporated into France with full right and freedom like any other part of France, other German states (Bavaria) were independants, allied to France and probably much more free than under Prussian boots.
You were far from angels.
ok, I've never said that
And let's remember that France had quite a part in the cause of the 1870 war. You actually demanded Prussia to back down, that's not the diplomatic way at all. Bismarck engineered the conflict, but you didn't back down either, so it was partly your choice too.
I never insist too much on 1870 war except to highlight how agressive young Prussian Germany was.
Another nice thing. Look at the percentage of population in the armed forces and the expenditure in % in 1914 to see just who was more militant...
Don't forget that for the first time in history, France was much weaker and less populated than Germany, the difference was even bigger than today something like France was around 2/3 of German power. And France had good reason to feel threatened and don't forget had a piece of land to take back..
The whole Prussian militarism is just a myth.
comon .. and Germany was young and crazy .. and it's not a shame to be badass
Now we are well off topic, I have a question: was prussia ever part of Charlemagne Empire ? I don't think so, where were they at this time ? Poland ?
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 3:04 PM
"?? are you kidding ? France almost never agressed anybody but was always agressed from all parts."
Like when you tried to grab Holland? Or the whole Napoleonic wars...I grant you that in the beginning you were attacked, but after some years it was clearly changing with you dictating politics to others...
"If France was agressive I don't think the divided German states we always had as neighbours since Charlemagne would have survived and prospered so well."
There was this thing called the HRE, war with the states meant war with the Empire, even then you did it numerous times when the Empire was weak. France wanted the Rhine border for a long time...
"well like you said, Germany was already well destroyed when French troops got involved despite France did its best to stay out. But France had no choice as our interest were threatened notably by the Spaniards and the Habsbourg. But definitelly no, the 30 year war is not the right example as everybody got involved in this mess: German states, Spain, Austria, Danemark, Sweden, Holland, everybody but Russia and Britain.
Franckly look like an excuse to me. "
You did the equivalent of robbing a disabled man, don't forget it was from then that you got AL...
"there was NO vassal in post Revolution France."
Yeah, not in name, but in everything else. Just what was the Confederation of the Rhine, or your puppet-Hannover. Or even the big bad militant Prussia...
" Some of German states had been incorporated into France with full right and freedom like any other part of France,"
Yeah, LOL, the freedom to be drafted into an army and fight for the glory of France and her Emperor against their own countrymen... Oh and also the freedom to pay huge sums of money and the freedom to allow French troops to loot the country...
" other German states (Bavaria) were independants, allied to France and probably much more free than under Prussian boots."
LOL, tell a Bavarian that he was dominated by Prussia, he will laugh. Bavaria was NEVER EVER dominated by Prussi, while one can argue that the Empire became prussianised, Bavaria was about the most own-minded nation around. They kept their own armed forces, offices and countless other freedoms. Hell, they got benefits and did little for it, you could say the Bavarians ripped the Prussians off.
And in any case, those "militant" Prussians were welcomed when they chased the French away.
"I never insist too much on 1870 war except to highlight how agressive young Prussian Germany was."
Agressive like telling another country who their next king has to be, cause that's what France did. And there are other examples.
"Don't forget that for the first time in history, France was much weaker and less populated than Germany, the difference was even bigger than today something like France was around 2/3 of German power. And France had good reason to feel threatened and don't forget had a piece of land to take back.."
That piece you took from us in the 30 years war maybe? And if we really were that militant, we should have certainly matched France's spending...
"comon .. and Germany was young and crazy .. and it's not a shame to be badass "
Well, I don't particularly mind it, but it's just historically wrong. France Britain and Russia did behave equally and were not an inch better. I think that myth comes from the fact that our wars were relatively recent and so everybody forgets that for about 500 years we were the bitch of Europe.
"Now we are well off topic, I have a question: was prussia ever part of Charlemagne Empire ? I don't think so, where were they at this time ? Poland ?"
I don't think they were in the Empire. Prussia is basically the land that belonged to the Prussian Baltic tribes, the Polish king called the Teutonic Knights to pacify and convert them. They did that and built up an own state. They became too powerful and the Polish king fought them. Prussia, at least East Prussia was never Poland, it was either Prussian or under German control.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 28 2005, 4:52 PM
Reaver180 Like when you tried to grab Holland? Or the whole Napoleonic wars...I grant you that in the beginning you were attacked, but after some years it was clearly changing with you dictating politics to others...
France was clearly agressed by a coalition of tyrans that felt threatened by the ideas of the Republic.
Thanks to point this "detail". Without this agression, Napoleon wouldn't have existed and the Republic would probably have spread all over Europe.
What do you mean "France dictating politics to others" ? stop agression ? look normal to me, continental blockade of Britain ? I agree, that was a foly and the reason of all the trouble, notably in Spain and Russia. Napoleon should have adopted a more defensive posture against Britain.
There was this thing called the HRE, war with the states meant war with the Empire, even then you did it numerous times when the Empire was weak. France wanted the Rhine border for a long time...
like you said France wasn't saint but respected the feodal rules so respected the Holy German Roman Empire's property. Remember there was NO nationalism at this time (was invented at the Revolution) This being said France never missed an occasion to take territory by wedding or when provoqued, and true French "natural borders" are the left side of the Rhin..
You did the equivalent of robbing a disabled man, don't forget it was from then that you got AL...
pfff Prussian propaganda. everybody was involved in this mess and France tried to stay out the longuer possible. When French troops entered in German states, they didn't plunder anything as everything was already destroyed.
"there was NO vassal in post Revolution France."
Yeah, not in name, but in everything else. Just what was the Confederation of the Rhine, or your puppet-Hannover. Or even the big bad militant Prussia...
" Some of German states had been incorporated into France with full right and freedom like any other part of France,"
Yeah, LOL, the freedom to be drafted into an army and fight for the glory of France and her Emperor against their own countrymen... Oh and also the freedom to pay huge sums of money and the freedom to allow French troops to loot the country...
loot the country ? again rhineland was part of France, are you sure they didn't had been looted by the Prussian instead ?
Every part of France had to contribute to the defense of the whole equally, Rhineland wasn't exception.
German soldiers did there duty and well and stayed loyal to France except at the very end because they were terrified by the Prussian retaliations.
Forget Prussian propaganda, remember nationalism didn't existed at this time or more exactly was invented by France. Do you think they all would have fought so well if it wasn't for an ideal different than the old game of power between barons and kings ?
LOL, tell a Bavarian that he was dominated by Prussia, he will laugh. Bavaria was NEVER EVER dominated by Prussi, while one can argue that the Empire became prussianised, Bavaria was about the most own-minded nation around. They kept their own armed forces, offices and countless other freedoms. Hell, they got benefits and did little for it, you could say the Bavarians ripped the Prussians off.
yeah but a lot prefer the French than the Prussian anyway. So despite all the Prussian propaganda, the French weren't probably all that bad. May be Bavarians like Liberty too ? Like the Dutch, a lot had a quite good memory of French so called "occupation". May be it's because they didn't suffered Prussian propaganda ? don't make me wrong, the end was hard for everybody, and first to the French themselves. that's because we were all exhausted by endless wars, each time a coalition was beaten, the British used to build a new one. And there was this Russian campaign ..
And in any case, those "militant" Prussians were welcomed when they chased the French away.
LOL, the last day of the war ? welcomed ? people was rather terrified imo. Not to the point to engage in the Prussian army though: there wasn't much Bavarians fighting at Waterloo..
"I never insist too much on 1870 war except to highlight how agressive young Prussian Germany was."
Agressive like telling another country who their next king has to be, cause that's what France did. And there are other examples.
LOL if it's a pretext of war, it's surprising there wasn't even more wars in Europe.
That piece you took from us in the 30 years war maybe?
It's strange the Germans didn't care with this land in 1814 but suddenly felt so concerned in 1870. This piece was the remains of Lotharingia, was largelly Francised and didn't belong more to Germans than to French. It's just that they chosen the wrong camp in the 30 year war and Louis XIV couldn't miss such an occasion ..
But I repeat nationalism is a recent thing, people didn't care much as long as they lived well.
I don't think they were in the Empire. Prussia is basically the land that belonged to the Prussian Baltic tribes, the Polish king called the Teutonic Knights to pacify and convert them. They did that and built up an own state. They became too powerful and the Polish king fought them. Prussia, at least East Prussia was never Poland, it was either Prussian or under German control.
That's what I thought: Those savage never got the occasion to be civilized by the Romans or the French
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 29 2005, 6:58 AM
Uh-hmmmm....well.
"I know, why do the yanks always think they 'saved someones ass' all the time when they join wars for their own interest and then expect gratitude for it?!...."
Now, just exactly where did I say that the U.S. "singlehandedly" did anything during WW1? I didn't! That was the point of my post. We were late-comers who weren't prepared to go to war and who only did so somewhat reluctantly in 1917 when the situation was in doubt. There is nothing "between the lines" in what I post....what I meant is there....there's no need to to divine any other meaning and doing so is a window to your own prejudices. Stop the b@ll****, okay...?
"The last german offensive has failed and germany was imploding due to famine and instability. However with american man power at the disposal of the allies, germany was forced to surrender...."
Absolutely no dispute here whatsoever. Germany was having internal problems which weakened it's ability to make war. This was the case in 1918 particularly, but in 1917 it wasn't so certain. Secondly, as I said above, the introduction of a new opposing force with a large number of fresh forces was a primary breaking moment in the war on the front.
"But in all, WW2 is the fault of the american, they suggest leniency. Whereas France and britain was pushing for total seperation of germany into german states. Because of the american stupidity and pacifism,the German recovered and made war again. WW1 was supposed to be France's last war, and the american fvck us in the end...."
WHAT? WHAT THE....?!?!?!?! ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!?!?!?!?!?!
I don't know what French-supremacist organization you get your weekly newsletter from, but you are about as wrong as humanly possible. So, leniency is what bread the post-war discontent and economic malaise that led to political extremism in Germany? Unbelievable. The punitive, confiscatory monetary and trade policies of the aftermath imposed by Versailles drove the German economy into the ground. It was pure revenge that motivated these demands and a position of political wekaness that force the Germans to accept them. So, I suppose that if you had "really let them have it" without American interference that the German economy would have been just fine and the German people would have been fine with a foreign enforced dismantling of their nation. Stupid, just flat stupid. It was exactly these situations (economic punishment and the perception of foreign domination of the country) that brought the fanatical Nazi party to power. So, if there had just been more of this, then everything would have been okay, huh? I am stunned.....
""- the Germans didn't have a single window broken because of the war and tried to make the people believe that the defeat was because of a communist plot that back stabbed the soldiers.(Hitler propaganda) "
It wasn't Hitler propaganda and despite being non PC today, that statement is true to an extent. Had we gone to the maximum, you would have spent a year and many thousand soldiers more to advance and defeat us militarily..."
True. The Germans weren't fighting a defensive land battle on their own ground...unlike some "other" countries.
"The US kept shut when British PASSANGER ships carried vital war materials to Britain, using the civilians, also Americans as shields.
The US policy of cash and carry was stacked vehemently against Germany, since we had no hope of being able to sail to Germany when Britain had the better fleet. A policy where neutral US ships could sail and trade with Germany was never implemented..."
This is true. I'm not implying that the U.S. was neutral during the war, it wasn't. We were better allied with the British and French, no doubt. That's not a point of contention nor the point of this thread....
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 29 2005, 10:06 AM
Americans blamed for ww2?! That is a bit far fetched! The only thing i can think of attributing blame on the US is perhaps that because they didnt join the League of Nations which could have helped prevent ww2. The US in the interwar years was not the military power it was afterwards so i doubt it would have made any difference.
As for splitting Germany up after WW1 that would probably have been a good idea and a preferable alternative to imposing such tough reparitions. However, although Germany was still a young country only unified barely 50 years and potentially still had strong regional nationalist feelings, it was still in one piece so a bit difficult to achieve.
Depends on who put forward a proposal like that and if it was blocked and by whom.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
June 29 2005, 12:43 PM
If the german had been "properly" beaten in WWI there would probably NOT have been WWII.
America is largelly responsible for this wasted victory so they are also responsible of WWII.
But so are the British who have bended under American pressure but also who probably had other strategic interest not to let France stay unmatched on the continent.
And so are the French and the British for the Versaille treaty that prevented everybody to turn the page and tried to wash our frustration by a treaty witch is completly impossible: only an invasion could do that.
To finish and add more regret, lets speak of the huge operation that was planned for the 14 November 1918 in the Ardennes: 31 divisions, 600 tanks vs 6 German divisions including 3 of Landwehr.
The armistice was signed 3 days before, the 11 november so it never happened .
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
July 1 2005, 10:04 PM
"The only ignorance in this thread is found in your post, which is nothing but ill-informed anti-Americanism. Why would it be "American propaganda" that Germany was responsible for WW1 when, 1)not a single American posted anything along those lines in this thread, and 2) America did not enter the war until 1917."
When did I accuse anyone of saying? Anti-Americanism? What are you talking about? Just because I pointed something out doesnt mean its anti-american.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
July 4 2005, 10:06 AM
True Britain would have wanted a united Germany to remain in Continental Europe in order to provide a counter-balance to France. Problem is a united Germany is too strong really. Then again when you have Russia to the East a strong Germany is required to preserve the balance of power.
Britain did not bow to American pressure at the end of WW1, Clemenceau wanted massive reparitions because of the damage to France during the conflict. The Americans wanted less revenge and the British were stuck in the Middle.
France got her massive reparitions, and the US got her League of Nations. Britain agreed with both as she had suffered in terms of economic and human costs but also wanted a League of Nations as a multinational way of keeping the global status quo as her power waned after WW1.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
July 4 2005, 7:46 PM
sweeneygov France got her massive reparitions, and the US got her League of Nations. Britain agreed with both as she had suffered in terms of economic and human costs but also wanted a League of Nations as a multinational way of keeping the global status quo as her power waned after WW1.
you can't have massive reparition through a treaty and the French knew that. They wanted to invade Germany. But the American didn't wanted for I don't know what reason and persuaded the british, threatening to make a separate peace with the Axis. Thinking of it, it appears that it was probably what Britain wanted, so, can all this be a little comedy between the USA and UK ? it's history fiction but would make sense.
Anyway, to make France accept the armistice, Wilson promised to defend France just in case ......
Here is a little article about what happened after WWI:
(it's in this site but I can't find the article http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- America Turns Her Back on Europe after WW1
The Situation After the Treaty of Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles was not a perfect document by any stretch of the imagination. The influence of the French on the treatment of Germany was very much evident. Yet, a number of successful points could lead to a more stable situation in Europe:
1. The idea of national self-determination allowed countries to exist on their own, not occupied by foreign powers. It was hoped that situations like in Serbia would not occur again as a spark to future wars.
2. Germany had been punished, but had not been destroyed or broken into smaller states. Several countries wanted Germany wiped out and returned to the many small states before Bismarck unified them.
3. The League of Nations was established along with several defensive alliances to limit future problems in Europe and the world.
The United States Rejects the Treaty of Versailles
The hard work of President Wilson during the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles was to be wasted. The American Congress, led by Senator Cabot Lodge, stated that changes must occur to the League of Nations agreement or they would not sign. They rejected the condition that stated, “All member states had to take collective action against aggression.” The only branch of the American government that can take action or declare war was Congress. Lodge thought that the President was taking away the right of Congress to declare war.
In addition, Congress refused to sign the defensive alliance he had promised France. This decision had implications in England as well. Once England heard that the United States was not going to support France, she withdrew her offer to the French as well. Wilson was crushed by these decisions and attempted to convince the branches of government and the American people of the importance of the treaty. Unfortunately, Wilson suffered a stroke that left him weak and limited in his ability to fight for his dream contained within the Fourteen Points.
Congress finally rejected the Treaty of Versailles and any deals with the French. They believed that the American people were not interested in the affairs of Europe. Furthermore, they did not want America involved in future wars that were not of direct interest to the United States. Thus, the United States returned to a policy of isolationism (just worrying about themselves and their own little empire), and turned her back on Europe and its politics.
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
July 5 2005, 9:40 AM
Thats a good site actually. I quite like the bit about the scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow. Its got estimates of the cost of the war: Germany $38bn, UK $35bn, France $24bn, US $20bn.
That's Britain for you. Tea solves everything.
You're a bit cold? Tea.
Your girlfriend has just left you? Tea.
You've just been told you've got cancer? Tea.
Coordinated terrorist attack on the transport network bringing the city to a grinding halt? TEA DAMMIT!
"Interestingly enough, one of my math teacher said US and UK are the two responsible for WW1"
Bwahahaha! Wow, talk about propaganda! LMAO! I feel sorry for children that're brainwashed such as these; it's sad. Yet funny at how someone could spread such BS.
It was probably taught to your teacher when he/she was a child as well. Sheesh! What ELSE do they tell you over there? lol
Re: After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
July 28 2005, 3:22 PM
Was that just her opinion or is that what kids are taught? It would shock me if thats what they learned in an actual history lesson. I might understand in some roundabout twisted way someone thinking the UK was involved but the US, they were only in it right at the end for less than a year, how did they start it?
Current Topic - After 100 years pass, how do you think who should take responsibilty of rising ww1.
Propoganda at its height.
.
[/img]
