What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?

[michaelmaltby]

Bomb Taxi, Parsafil - thank you.

"... If I may be blunt, the Marshall Plan was not charity - it was, in it's own way, as imperialistic as anything the British did a century earlier..."

Viking: "...Then there were the land that they lost." Yes - Allsace-Lorraine in 1871 ... the coal producing region of industrial France!

After jousting with Der Crewchief, this afternoon , I've decided that the only honest way to resolve Carbon's original challenge is as follows:

Which country GAINED the most from its participation in WW2???

* Britain
* Germany
* France
* Russia
* USA
* Italy
* Japan
* China
* Commonwealth - India, Canada, Australia, S. Africa, New Zealand, Rhodesia, et al
* Other (Brazil, Mexico, etc.)

MM

 

[vikingBerserker]

Viking: "...Then there were the land that they lost." Yes - Allsace-Lorraine in 1871 ... the coal producing region of industrial France!

Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with. But in addition to this, they also lost:


Most of the Prussian provinces of Province of Posen and West Prussia ceded to Poland.

The Hultschin area of Upper Silesia was transferred to Czechoslovakia.

The area of the towns Eupen and Malmedy went to Belgium, as well as the Vennbahn Railway.

The northern part of East Prussia known was placed under the control of France and was later annexed by Lithuania.

Japan gained Germany's islands north of the equator (the Marshall Islands, the Carolines, the Marianas, the Palau Islands) and Kiautschou in China.

German Samoa was assigned to New Zealand

German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Nauru to Australia as mandatory.

Britain and France divided German Kamerun and Togoland

Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa

Portugal received the Kionga Triangle

German South West Africa was annexed to the Union of South Africa

 

[parsifal]

Bomb Taxi, Parsafil - thank you.


Which country GAINED the most from its participation in WW2???

* Britain
Britain emerged from the war with little to gain from it. She had successfully defended the values of democracy and resisted oppression and evil but in terms of mat3erial gain the war cost her her position of being ranked 4th or so in the world stage. She rapidly sank after the war to about 8th or 9th position in the world rankings. Her people were impoverished, her economy in tatters, her military exhausted
* Germany
Germany was torn asunder by the war. lost much territory was despised by the world community. She had suffered enormously in terms of human and economic losses, and also in terms of political standing. Yet in the 60 years after the war Germansy in my opinion gained from the peace that followed. The most important thing was that the germans embraced democracy and individual freedom. They at last discarded miltarism as a national make up. Economically thyey were reconstructed. They are slowly gaining international prestige and standing and economically are viewed as the "european miracle"
* France
France was embittered by her experiences in the war. She lost prestige, was extensively damaged, and after the war has tended to cling to her pride rather than any real gains in political or economic stability. She is a hotbed of anti-semitism, and is being destabilised by the rise of euro-islam
* Russia
Russia emrged from the war with a massive casualty bill, huge amounts of damage. She quickly managed to alienate the US and the west, which cut her off from Marshall Aid. Her people gained no benefit from the "democracy explosion" that liberated Germany and Japan.

Her inroads into europe are only understandable if they are viewed for what they are, a defensive move brought on by the excessive manias of Stalin and his cronies. The subjugation of Eastern Europe did not bring Russia prosperity or popularity and indeed the security benefits of this forced occupation were very questionable in the age of the ICBM.
* USA
The US economy was the only economy (of the major powers) to emerge from the war relatively unscathed, and in fact rather stronger than it has entered the war. US standards of living were up, and in common with other wstern nations women were much more integrated into the economy. The US was well placed to exploit the post war consumer revolution. The post war period saw a massive increase in US world leadership status, the so-called Pax Americana. .

However as the post war booms are fading and US economic power begins to wane the chickens are really starting to come home. The US have allowed their industry their commerce, their exports to drop in effiiciency, to the point that the world now views the US as pretty much an economic, and social basket case, and the main purveyor of woe for the rest of us. I believe that this latter downturn is more than just a repeat of the boom/bust cycle, it seems very likley that it is the crease in the page that sees the permanent change in fortunes for the Americans
* Italy
The Italians have swapped a shaky Totalitarian regime for an even shakier democtratic regime. Other than that, I believe their experiences are similar to those of the French, less some of the more repugnant prejudices
* Japan
The Japanese have totally abandoned militarismn as a concept. They have hurtled from the worlds 5th economic power to its second (though this is under challenge from the Chinese). Their society is stable, healthy and welathy. But ther is just something about all of this that makes me nervous and concerned....I cant put my finger on it at this moment......
* China
She survived, intact, eventually to be communist, and then to embrace a "command capitalism" economic that is providing phenomenal power and waelth to the Chinese. I believe the Chinese will achieve a return to the "middle kingdom" status in the 21st century, especially in Asia

* Commonwealth - India, Canada, Australia, S. Africa, New Zealand, Rhodesia, et al
The dominions, NZ, SA, Canada and Australia were already free, but emerged more or less as completely independant nations free frokm all control by Britain. Their economies had all done well, their democracies were stable, and they all benefitted from post wart immigration booms. Australia is the only western country that I know of that is not in recession at the moment. At a time that the US is predicting a 5% loss in their economy this fiscal year, the Australians are hanging on with a 1.8% expected growth rate this year. Our multi-cultural background makes us a very stable and culturally rich society.
In the case of Australia we have been gripped by a phobia about the "yellow peril" that has only just started to dissipate. For years we wanted to crawl back to the comfort zone of mother country and empire. That we have traded one mother country for another is not the point, our independance as a nation has often been sacrificed to please our new masters, which rankles quite a few of us at times. Only over the last thirty years or so have we matured enough to be confident in our own abilities and approach the alliance as a fully soverign nation, with a right to voice our own opinion and assert our independance when we felt the need to do that. NZ has done that even more than us, though not always in her own interests.
India, and to alesser extent Malaysia have emerged from the wart as the real tiger economies of the third world. They also have a better start to the democratic traditions of the westminster system


* Other (Brazil, Mexico, etc.)
Hard to summarise....the nations to note are Israel, Vietnam, the Philipinnes, Korea, Saudi. All very different, and all profoundly affected by the end of the war.......
A final word needs to be said about eastern europe. It suffered badly after the war, and the worst of the worst has to be either Poland, and/or Hungary. Hungary is powering on now, not so sure about Poland

 

[Condora]

The USA gained the most: didn't suffer the damages at home other countries did (the war was always someplace else), and it's economy was booming, and bound to get better (an additional 10-20% feminine labour force is not to be despised).

Russia had suffered a lot, but also had an industrial growth, with foreign help as a bonus. Imperial Russia never managed to be an undisputed world power, CCCP did it.

Britain, France, Japan, Italy... all were devastated, gradually lost their empires.

China also was devastated, still had a civil war to fight, which means that had almost reverted to the warlords-period. One can almost say that WW II was just a diversion during the transition period between the end of Imperial China and the confirmation of a new national power.

Other nations didn't play a significant role, or get much from the war.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

"If you are unsure what I mean, then just ask me and I will explain what I mean."

I'm unsure, Crew Chief. I need to understand the "context". Guderian was in the suburbs of Moscow in December '41 and ... well .. we know how that worked out. Napoleon made it right into the city and ... same story

"No Allied soldier set foot in Germany" - perhaps my geography is weak but the last time I checked, Cologne was a German city.

MM

When WW1 ended, no allied soldier was on German soil. That is not hard to understand.

The point that I was making, is yes Germany was defeated, but they were not defeated on the "Battlefield per say". This does not mean they did not loose battles or were not going to loose. At the time Germany advocated for peace, they controlled allied territory not the other way around.

That is why many Germans beleive the treaty was a farce. I am a believer in this as well. Why? Because the treaty led directly to WW2. Should Germany have been punished? Of course, but certain terms of the treaty were a bit harsh.

The breakdown in Germany was in large measure the result of the crippling blockade that had been imposed in 1914, and maintained throughout the war.

Also, had the war continued into 1919, the Germans would have been driven back into their own territory. The German army on the western front, were not defeated utterly, but they were starting to crumble nevertheless (look at the battles following April 1918 and it becomes obvious-in particular what the germans called "the black week" which occurred in August 1918) . In 1919 they would have been subjected to a ww2 style of armoured warfare as the theories of JFC Fuller were put into effect. In the air they were losing the air war. On the Turkish front the Turks were suing for peace. Austria had all but collapsed. Germany's allies were deserting her in droves. The Allies were winning the war at sea. The British and the French were finally getting some forward movement on the western front.

Absolutely correct. Never tried to argue that.

Its again just not true to try and argue that Germany was not facing defeat.

Never tried to argue that either.

Viewed in those terms Versailles was entirely reasonable. Germany was guilty of waging the first of her aggressive wars, and had inflicted enormous misery on most of her neighbours. This was particulalry true for the French, where the horrors of Verdun were all too real. Germany got the peace terms she deserved, in my opinion

That is where I do not agree. All sides witnessed the horrors, to give all the blame to Germany for that is wrong in my opinion. German technicaly did not start the war. She honored her treaties however.

I do agree that Germany should have been punished harsh, but I do not agree with all the terms of the treaty.

The allies were not so silly the second time around. They demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender, to push the point home that Germany was defeated by the allies, in the second war

That is 100% correct as well.

IMHO the Treaty of Versailles seemed more severe then the Treaty of Frankfurt. France just had to pay the war indemnity within 3 years to Germany. Germany had to reimburse the main victors and then pay for their own occupation of their own country. Then there were the land that they lost.

I agree. I believe the treaty could have been handled differently.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Alder - your summary of territories lost is an accurate list but - overseas territories aside - is not an honest description of history.

You state: "..Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with..."

Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.

I believe you are using the same argument that was used to justify the Sudatenland grab - and interchanging freely regions occupied by German-speaking people with the reality of a larger unified German state. Such a state never existed until after the fall of Napoleon and the revolutions of 1848.

Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe. You are free to believe otherwise naturally but if you do - accepting the idea that wherever in Eastern Europe Germans (and German speaking people) migrated was Germany - than - by the same token why not for the English or Chinese.

From Peter the Great, to Catherine and onwards, German people were encouraged to expand east bringing modernity, productivity and economic benefits to the regions where they settled. This worked well in times of peace and harmony, but in times of oppression - post Revolution Russia and Russia under Stalin during WW2 - it was an excuse for injustice and persecution. That point is off track but cited only to reinforce what I have stated already - the POLITICAL STATE of Germany you describe wasn't yet 100 years old when the Kaiser abdicated in 1918.

And to maintain perspective - proportionately, Austro-Hungary lost more, I believe, as aresult of also being on the losing side.

To avoid any misunderstanding here, I believe that the Versailles arrangement provided the opportunities and irritants that contributed directly to WW2 (and you advocate that position fairly). But Britain, France, the Commonwealth did NOT go out of their way to start WW2 to complete the undoing of Germany that WW1 had begun. Only the German people can accept that responsibility. This is import to appreciate because (1) modern Germany (like modern Japan) provides hope that constructive developments can come from war when lessons are learned (Carbon, note, the original premise of your thread); and (2) We increasingly live in an age of victimization. No one is responsible for anything. Everyone is a victim. Sgt. Shultz: "I see nuthing, I know nothing" And on that path lies utter ruin because people repeat the same mistakes until they LEARN from them and modify their behavior/actions accordingly.

Parsifal - I think your analysis of post WW2 gains and losses is balanced and fair and I thank everyone for their input on this.

I close thus: this is a very dangerous time for the USA. All nations have their good and bad days. Overall, the USA has been an overwhelming force for GOOD not EVIL in this modern world - as has Christianity on whose values its laws and constitution are based. When the President of the United States flies around the world apologizing for sins, slights and omissions not committed, than every bully and tyrant rubs his hands and licks his lips.

MM

 

[river]

Hi,

I close thus: this is a very dangerous time for the USA. All nations have their good and bad days. Overall, the USA has been an overwhelming force for GOOD not EVIL in this modern world - as has Christianity on whose values its laws and constitution are based. When the President of the United States flies around the world apologizing for sins, slights and omissions not committed, than every bully and tyrant rubs his hands and licks his lips.

Good post, with a very interesting closure.

However, I don't understand what your comment regarding the USA apologising is not good for the USA. If it is beleived to be a "weakness" to apologise, then what is the alternative? I don't assume you mean to be strong and wage military campaigns, so perhaps you mean a more powerful diplomatic USA? Financially it is not a strong country like it was, so what does the USA need to do to pull herself back to her former glory?

To adhere to "christian" values would the USA not apologise for previous sins and transgressions, especially if one's laws and constitution are built upon it?

If apologising is opening the door to tyrannical attack, then what does the USA need to do to get her respect and strength back.

river

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alder - your summary of territories lost is an accurate list but - overseas territories aside - is not an honest description of history.

You state: "..Allsace-Lorraine had been annexed by Louis XIV in the 1700's and had been German to begin with..."

Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.

I made no such statement and no summary of territories lost...

I believe you are using the same argument that was used to justify the Sudatenland grab - and interchanging freely regions occupied by German-speaking people with the reality of a larger unified German state. Such a state never existed until after the fall of Napoleon and the revolutions of 1848.

I never used any arguement to justify the Sudentland...

Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe. You are free to believe otherwise naturally but if you do - accepting the idea that wherever in Eastern Europe Germans (and German speaking people) migrated was Germany - than - by the same token why not for the English or Chinese.

Didn't do that either...

From Peter the Great, to Catherine and onwards, German people were encouraged to expand east bringing modernity, productivity and economic benefits to the regions where they settled. This worked well in times of peace and harmony, but in times of oppression - post Revolution Russia and Russia under Stalin during WW2 - it was an excuse for injustice and persecution. That point is off track but cited only to reinforce what I have stated already - the POLITICAL STATE of Germany you describe wasn't yet 100 years old when the Kaiser abdicated in 1918.

What political state did I describe?

To avoid any misunderstanding here, I believe that the Versailles arrangement provided the opportunities and irritants that contributed directly to WW2 (and you advocate that position fairly). But Britain, France, the Commonwealth did NOT go out of their way to start WW2 to complete the undoing of Germany that WW1 had begun.

When did I ever say that the allies did? All I stated is the treaty should have been handled differently, because in the way it was created it helped lead to WW2.

Only the German people can accept that responsibility. This is import to appreciate because (1) modern Germany (like modern Japan) provides hope that constructive developments can come from war when lessons are learned (Carbon, note, the original premise of your thread); and (2) We increasingly live in an age of victimization. No one is responsible for anything. Everyone is a victim. Sgt. Shultz: "I see nuthing, I know nothing" And on that path lies utter ruin because people repeat the same mistakes until they LEARN from them and modify their behavior/actions accordingly.

I agree with you, but I don't think that was ever a part of my arguement...

 

[vikingBerserker]

MM

I posted the list, not Adler.

Prior to Bismark, no German political state existed - ever - that corresponded to the geo-political entity that signed the Versailles peace treaty.

I disagree. "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" included most if not all of present day of Germany (known at that time as the "Kingdom of Germany"), as well as some territory around it (1450-1806). The Legislative body was called "The Reichstag".

The Empire also had two courts: the Reichshofrat (also known in English as the Aulic Council) at the court of the King/Emperor, and the Reichskammergericht (Imperial Chamber Court), established with the Imperial Reform of 1495.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Alsace and much of Lorraine were both originally German-speaking territories when France annexed them.

Historians generally accept the idea that MODERN European history begins with Napoleon - they believe this because his regime set in motion the process of unraveling old monarchist Europe.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this, an event that occurred before this time could/did still have an impact on events after this time.

And to maintain perspective - proportionately, Austro-Hungary lost more, I believe, as a result of also being on the losing side.

I believe the Ottoman Empire lost the most land of the Central Powers, but I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make. We were talking about the impact the French land loses of the Franco-Prussian War had on the German losses of land at the end of WW1.

 

[Marcel]

That is where I do not agree. All sides witnessed the horrors, to give all the blame to Germany for that is wrong in my opinion. German technicaly did not start the war. She honored her treaties however.

I do agree that Germany should have been punished harsh, but I do not agree with all the terms of the treaty.

I agree with you Adler, apart from the last part that Germany should heve been punished harsh. All groups were equally guilty of starting WWI, not just Germany. Especially the UK was guilty of WWI. Therefore I disagree that Germany deserved punishment by their "colleagues in the crime". Germany was just punished because they surrendered and thus were on the loosing side. Nobody gained anything from the treaty and thus the treaty was a farce. It led to much more suffering by WW2, which says it all.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Apologies, Adler. I've been out of town. That list was indeed NOT yours.

I stand by my argument in response to that list, however.

MM

 

[Waynos]

Marcel, I'm interested in the comment that the UK was especially to blame for WW1, naturally this is a viewpoint I have never come across before so would you mind fleshing out for me why Britain was more to blame for the outbreak of war? I would say that we were indecently keen once it began, however.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you Adler, apart from the last part that Germany should heve been punished harsh. All groups were equally guilty of starting WWI, not just Germany. Especially the UK was guilty of WWI. Therefore I disagree that Germany deserved punishment by their "colleagues in the crime". Germany was just punished because they surrendered and thus were on the loosing side. Nobody gained anything from the treaty and thus the treaty was a farce. It led to much more suffering by WW2, which says it all.

I somewhat agree with you there. The politics of the time to include all the national treaties really had a big part into starting the war. I mean if you look at it the assisnation was on 28 June, one month later Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. The next day Russia mobilized to honor its treaty with Serbia. The next day Germany mobilized to honor her treaty with Austria-Hungary. Then the French mobilized the very next day.

It really was brewing over time, I believe that based off of the treaties and annimosity between nations it was only a matter of time anyhow.

I however do not believe that any one side can take all the blame, certainly not England.

I believe the main instigators would have to be Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and Serbia.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?

Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... (very much like the USA after WW2 with the USSR) GB invested massive quantities of blood and treasure to contain-then-defeat Napoleon - imagine the cost of maintaining a constant naval blockade from 1793 (aprox) to 1812 (with one very brief lull). Maintained with wooden sailing ships in historically rough waters.

England, France, Portugal, Spain all had colonies. Russia had land, land and more land. Germany was the new kid in the neighborhood and wanted into the Empire and the Mercantile game ... nobody wanted to yield so Germany prepared for war very carefully and then marched ....

Revisionism and 'what if's' may be fun .. but after a while nobody knows reality (truth) any more and people just spin the facts that favor their position .... like ex-Soviet historians today claiming that France and GB caused WW2 by NOT yielding to Stalin's desire to contain Hitler by moving west to Germany's flank.

In 1914, German was looking for an excuse to use the powerful, well-equipped military she had carefully built .. and she found it ... in treaties.

In 1914, Britain wasn't looking for an excuse to send an expeditionary army to France .... for what? Treasure Right...

If someone came to your door, my friends, and informed you that they were going to attack your neighbors - but not you, as long as you let them through your house and land without opposition, would you agree? Or would you resist? Belgium resisted and the German army leveled the place and took reprisals against civilians.

I have stated already that Versailles - and especially a vengeful France - were sources of the war that following - but times were different in 1914. The German, British and Russian Royal Families were all cousins for Heaven's sake.

MM

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Blaming England for what ... having an Empire ...? Being the most successful military and trading organization of her time ..?

Come om Gentlemen, this is revisionist nonesense .... (very much like the USA after WW2 with the USSR) GB invested massive quantities of blood and treasure to contain-then-defeat Napoleon - imagine the cost of maintaining a constant naval blockade from 1793 (aprox) to 1812 (with one very brief lull). Maintained with wooden sailing ships in historically rough waters.

England, France, Portugal, Spain all had colonies. Russia had land, land and more land. Germany was the new kid in the neighborhood and wanted into the Empire and the Mercantile game ... nobody wanted to yield so Germany prepared for war very carefully and then marched ....

Revisionism and 'what if's' may be fun .. but after a while nobody knows reality (truth) any more and people just spin the facts that favor their position .... like ex-Soviet historians today claiming that France and GB caused WW2 by NOT yielding to Stalin's desire to contain Hitler by moving west to Germany's flank.

In 1914, German was looking for an excuse to use the powerful, well-equipped military she had carefully built .. and she found it ... in treaties.

In 1914, Britain wasn't looking for an excuse to send an expeditionary army to France .... for what? Treasure Right...

If someone came to your door, my friends, and informed you that they were going to attack your neighbors - but not you, as long as you let them through your house and land without opposition, would you agree? Or would you resist? Belgium resisted and the German army leveled the place and took reprisals against civilians.

I have stated already that Versailles - and especially a vengeful France - were sources of the war that following - but times were different in 1914. The German, British and Russian Royal Families were all cousins for Heaven's sake.

MM

Please do not use the term "gentlemen (plural for Gentleman)" here. I only see one person who said England was to blame. So I don't see any revisionist nonesense going on here.

The statement that I made is fact, and that was that national treaties and anomosity helped lead to the war. It would have happened at some point anyhow.

So please think about what you say before accusing people of things. I may look at some things different than you, but I am certainly not a revisionsist punk.

 

[Condora]

The blame on providing the "spark" may be placed on Austria-Hungary, who used Ferdinand's assassination as an excuse to declare war on Serbia, although they had accepted A-H "unacceptable ultimatum".

But the fact is, for a reason or another, they were all dying for a war.
"Lick the huns and be back in 6 months", or some nonsense like that...

 

[michaelmaltby]

Adler, I did not refer to anyone specifically as a "revisionist punk" - least of all you I said that there is a trend toward revisionist interpretations of history such as the following: [... the UK should not have entered WW1, could have avoided it, and it made the war into a World War by entering, therefore the UK bears responsibility for the scope of the conflict]. Ninety years after the war happened it's easy for any academic who wants grant money or attention or tenure to research such a topic write a book, and present the facts - it's not constructive, however, and doesn't advance understanding of the topic because - in the end - its a topic about something that didn't happen. History is about what did happen.

I try not to use personal invictive in my threads and responses to others' threads - "punk" is not a word I'd ever reach for, but neither is: "Don't get butt hurt."

MM

 

[vikingBerserker]

No, that's pretty much what you said. Only one person stated it and nobody agreed with it.

This is the first time I have ever heard anybody claim England caused WW1. Of course I just found out a few months ago that Poland causesd WW2.

 

[parsifal]

The causes for WWI are far more complex than those for WWII. It was a mixture of politics, alliances, militarism, competition nationalism, and trade. However ultimately it was a battle about who would control Europe.

Prior to the emergence of Germany as the premier European power there was a balance in Europe that was mostly orchestrated by the British, through her navy. Whilst no single nation could claim dominance over Europe, they had to expend large resources on land forces, and could not afford to challenge the power of the Royal Navy. The British were able to control European seaborn trade because of their control of the oceans, and also controlled the imperial grabs for land and resources that were the hallmark of the 19th century. British pre-eminence was essentially benevolent however. It cannot be argued that the British attempted to use their position of power for malevolent reasons. They got rich, and controlled vast amounts of the earth, but they did not attempt to dominate Europe in a direct sense. The British strategy was always to support the second most powerful country in europe, with the obvious aim of maintaining the delicate balance of power in Europe. This explains why, after the rise of germany, Britain allied herself with France.

The Germans upset that balance. The most fundamental issues were her desire to achive naval parity with the British, and the second was her strong desire to gain a large colonial empire. Thirdly, the germans, unlike the British DID want to directly control and dominate Europe. They were not content with benevolent neglect as the british had been. They wanted German jackboots marching down the capitals of nearly every nation in Europe. So too did most of her opponents,, but the Germans just wanted it more than most, and had the power to go for that objective in adangerous way.

Put simply, without Germany in the equation, ther would not have been a major war, with Germany in the equation (with her nationalistic, and imperialistic and militaristic overtones) the war becaomes almost an inevitability

That why the allies turned on Germany at Versailles. She had pursued the dream of european domination more vigorously than anyone, and had destroyed the delicate equilibrium that had balnced ERurope for a century. Versailles was designed to try and restore that balance I think, by removing Germany as a credible threat . More than alittle the trety was also tinged with a thirst for vengeance.

 

[renrich]

Plain and simple, WW1 was almost inevitable when Kaiser Bill decided to build a navy to rival Britain's. Britain was a maritime nation that relied on world trade for her existence, just like the US today. Germany was not. The dominoes began to fall with Serbia, Austro Hungary, Russia,Germany and France all falling into line. Germany had a plan in place to take out France and in order to eliminate them before Russia could mobilise, they executed the plan which meant going through neutral Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and the fat was in the fire. What a blessing it would have been if, in 1917 before the US got in, an armistice had been arranged. World history would have been substantially different.