Which side would you fly for?.......

[Readie]

Yep. It was based on the humiliation placed on the Germans by the french in the Treaty of Versailles. Even the Americans knew it was too much, and forseen another World War.

Totally undeserved humiliation of course.
What did Germany expect after WW1 the hand of friendship?

 

[GrauGeist]

Totally undeserved humiliation of course.
What did Germany expect after WW1 the hand of friendship?

I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.

 

[parsifal]

Sorry, but untrue. In actual fact the events in the rough were:

"On 28 July, the conflict opened with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France; and a Russian attack against Germany".

Germany was allied to one of the agressor nations that started the whole conflagaration, and widened the conflict by invading neutral and third party nations. In othr words they were guilty of waging a war of aggression.

Of course its more complicated than that, but in terms of determinaing war guilt, thats as far as it need go. germany wanted to gamble its national survival by invading other nations. end of story, no further debate necessary. guilty as charged. they wre lucky to keep their national identity. If it had been me in charge, there would have been no Germany after the end of the armistice

The run of events that led to war were as follows:

28 June Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo. He was shot by a Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip. The Austrians saw the murder as a perfect pretext to crush Serbia.
5 July Kaiser William II assured Austria of Germany's support in whatever measures she took against Serbia, the so-called "Blank Cheque".
23 July Austria presented Serbia with an ultimatum and she was given 48 hours to reply. Although the text was approved on the July 19 it was decided to delay its presentation until the state visit of the French President and Prime Minister to Russia was finished. This was done to prevent the French and Russians from co-ordinating their response. It was presented when the French delegation had left Russia and was at sea.

The Serbs agreed to all of the Austrian demands bar one. The Austrians were so surprised by the humility of the Serbian reply that the foreign minister hid it for 2 days from the Germans. The Kaiser commented that the reply was "a great moral victory for Vienna, but with it, every reason for war disappears."

28 July Austria rejected the Serbian reply and declared war. The Russians ordered a partial mobilisation of their troops against Austria in defence of Serbia.
29 July The Austrians shelled Belgrade.
30 July Russia ordered general mobilisation. Crisis escalated. British attempts at mediation failed.
31 July The Germans presented an ultimatum to Russia to halt her mobilisation within 12 hours. She also presented one to France in which she was asked to promise to stay neutral and to hand over border fortresses as guarantee. (the Germans knew the French would never agree!)
It must be remembered that once the military machine mobilised the generals took over from the diplomats. James Joll wrote "once the Russians had mobilised the military machine took over from the diplomats.

In German military thinking, once she was at war with Russia, war with France was unavoidable. The Schlieffen plan now came into operation. This involved a concentration of German forces on an attack on France. Delay could be fatal.

1 August Germany declared war on Russia. France ordered general mobilisation.
2 August Germany demanded from the Belgians the right to send troops through their country. The Belgians refused.
3 August Germany declared war on France and its troops entered Belgium. The British sent an ultimatum to the Germans calling for the evacuation of Belgium.
4 August Britain declared war on Germany.

World War One had begun.



Lloyd George later remarked that at this time Europe "stumbled and staggered into war"

 

[Readie]

I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.

Germany didn't start WW1 ?
Your understanding of history is different to mine (and everyone else)

http://www.causeeffect.org/articles/historypart2.pdf

08-03 - Germany declares war on France.
-1914
08-04 - Britain informs Germany that a condition of war will exist between
-1914 Britain and Germany--if Germany does not agree to promptly
stop trespassing its army through Belgium. After Britain receives no
reply, Britain declares war on Germany (i.e., ref. 8-4-1914).

05-07 - Treaty of Versailles submitted to the German delegation.
-1919
Strangely; it seems to have taken the "Allies" almost 6 long months
to decide what to demand from the defeated Axis. Perhaps that
unusually great time was required, because the Allies argued among
themselves as to how to the divide up the "spoils". ((A tough imposed
treaty, itself, would have seemed justifiable—since Germany had
recently set such pattern by the ultra-tough terms they imposed on
Soviet Russia. And Germany, earlier, had imposed tough terms on
France (after the Franco-Prussian war). Hitler's future argument (that
the harsh terms of Versailles' dwarfed anything Germany, etc., had
ever imposed) --is nonsense!))

You'll see that the imposition of tough terms on a defeated nation has its roots in history.
If Germany had won WW1 do you seriously think that they would have shown any clemency to the defeated allies?

John

 

[Mustang nut]

Germany didn't start WW1 ?
Your understanding of history is different to mine (and everyone else)

In the days when historians used to speak at length RGP Taylor made a programme
about the start of WW1. He offered the theory that the problem revolved around the word Mobilization.

To France and Russia mobilization meant go to the front and get ready, to the Germans it meant
go to a railhead and invade. There was no scope in the Schliefen plan to have thousands of soldiers standing around.

Back on topic I would fly for the allies on diver patrols, fly the fastest planes, defend the homeland, get a heros welcome in the bar but you dont have to kill anyone.

 

[Tante Ju]

If it had been me in charge, there would have been no Germany after the end of the armistice

Good luck - can you also present you battle plan as to

a, Push out German from France (where they had strong position still)
b, How to cross Rhine..

Thank you.

Very easy to dissolve Germany from armchair I say. But by 1918, the British and French were at least as "spent" as German.. That is said, German had no hope of winning war no longer after the failure of their 1918 offensive.. it would, on different hand, rrequire years to actually loose it for them.

The run of events that led to war were as follows:

WW1 had simple reason. France could not sit tight on its ass which was handed to her in 1870 - a war that she started, and lost. She could not accept being no longer the greatest continental power.. so they spent next 40 years building a military alliance around Germany - fatally this included Russia, and Russia and Austria (as well as Turkey) had long term rivalry in Balkans. This was no problem until Bismarckian allience worked in Europe - Germany, Austria and Russia being uneasy friends. French diplomacy skillfully ruined this allience.

The most imminent cause of World War I was Russian mobilisation, refusing to stop it, meddling with the Balkans. Princip's terrorist group was funded by Russian, well known.. Sarajeve just lit the fuse. Otherwise it would stay a small Serbian - Austro-Hungarian war. The French already packed the building with gunpowder barrels...

Letters exchange between the Czar and Kaiser are very interesting. First World War.com - Primary Documents - The "Willy-Nicky" Telegrams

 

[Readie]

Germany could never win WW1 for more reasons than you selectively choose TJ

The Naval blockade Allied Naval Blockade

More than anything it was the British naval blockade which kept the Central Powers from getting sufficient amounts of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and so on to continue the war past 1916-1917. If it hadn't been for this it's probable that either the Germans would have had a breakthrough (i.e. capturing Paris and forcing France to surrender), or that the war would have ended with an inconclusive armistice (one that didn't really recognize either side as the victor).

Having said that the blockade enabled the western Allies to match the Germans, and once the U.S. got involved the amount of material support made it impossible for the Germans to continue the fight, not even their reinforcements from the Eastern Front after Russia surrendered were enough.

The other reasons are in this essay. Why did Germany lose World War One? | Socyberty

John

 

[parsifal]

Tante

I dont dispute that Britain and France were exhausted, but they were not starving, they had largely defeated the blockade affecting them (the U-Boats). Germany on the other hand had not overcome their blockade.

As to Britain and France being on their knees, just like Germany, they sure had a funny way of showing that. Having defeated Ludendorfs final throw of the dice, with Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies, the allies were already busily destroying the German frontline defences on the western front, before the arrival of large numbers of Americans. Those American formations that were in the line were poorly trained and not in a position to immediately undertake heavy operations. They were mostly farmed out and given "instruction" on techniques learned so far. By wars end they were attacking independantly, and were going to tip the balance.

Had the war progressed into 1919, the british were going to employ massed tanks on a sustained scale, properly organized (for 1918 ) and provided with better maintenance support. Cambrai had faltered because of a lack of manpower (occuring just after the Somme) and because of a massive breakdown rate. The Germans had no real answer to the American build up, the allied technology based counteroffensive. Black week saw the near total collapse of the german armies in the west, so i dont know where you get this notion that Germany was not defeated....rings very like the myths and lies that sprang up just after the war....."we wewrent defeated, we were just betrayed". No you were not betrayed, your armies were in defeat, and that was achieved by the allies, not by some mythical 5th column.

As for Russia causing the war, or france not sitting on their ass, Austria determined that it wanted to wage a war of agression against Serbia, rejected the accession by Serbia to all but one Austrian of the demands deliberately misled the French and the Russian delegations. Serbia was a Russian ally, so any move against Serbia is goiing to attract a russian resposne. Same for france. I dont deny the French were dirty about the Franco Prussian war, bu they were closely allied to Russia, and Britain had given a long standing gurantee to Belgium since Napoleon. All these were known facts, yet Germany nevertheless chose to attack anyway. Tell me again Russia and france were responsible for the war. Who invaded who???????? What you are saying is, "why didnt the allies sit back and just let the central powers have their way with serbia?". Sorry, it doesnt work that way with allies working as allies.

And all this doesnt get around the fact that Germany andf Austria, allies of their own, fired the first shots, caused everyone to react by their reckless acts, and comitted overtly agressive acts like invading Belgium....which make them guilty of initiating a war of aggression. Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.

As to how I would break up Germany, the model for that exists in the post wwii occupation of the country. instead of occupying just parts, the allies should have occupied the whole country, dissolved whatever pissant government was in place maintained military administration until the country was rebuilt, the general staff dissolved, and the scourge of German militarism excorcised. It was possible 25 years later, after unconditional surrender was achieved, why not in 1918. What was needed was US co-operation, but they would have none of this. As you say the remaining allies were too weakened by German aggression at that stage to complete the job themselves. The US needed to be part of that plan, but instead wanted to follow the path of a weak and inneffective treaty....create a whole stack of non-viable nations around a nation that whilst defeated, had benn allowed to play the charade of not having been beaten.

 

[Readie]

Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.

The German aggression in WW1, the interwar years, and in WW2 all combine to do just that.
There are no excuses however you choose to rewrite history Tante Ju

John

 

[Ratsel]

I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.

Exactly. Also, if one chooses to read the treaty begining to end, it guaranteed the making of a second world war.. anyways I'd fly for Germany.

 

[Readie]

Exactly. Also, if one chooses to read the treaty begining to end, it guaranteed the making of a second world war.. anyways I'd fly for Germany.

The ToV does not. Hitler made it his excuse for war and genocide.

John

 

[parsifal]

My opinion: The treaty was a failure because it was too easy on the germans. From ther, the makings of the second war were all of germany's making (well, except for Allied complacency). They chose to rearm, chose to abrogate the treaties that they had accepted, they gobbled up country after country, installed a meglomaniac as their leader, planned and prepred for war. None of these were forced on Germany. they chose this path. What the allies were guilty of was, firstly to trust germany and secondly to lack the will to enforce the weak treaty that they had helped create.

This , strangely enough has at least passing relevance to the topic. By following an essentially opportunitic pathway, the germans failed to plan and prepre for a long war the second time around. This affected their outputs and productivity and damned them to fighting a "poor mans war" the second time around. The allies prepred their nations for the long term haul and reaped benefits, eventually, from that approach.

none of this would have happened if unconditional surrender had been demanded the first time around. And if it hadnt been demanded in the 2nd war, we would have had to do it all again a third time around. And there are signs that even after all this effort and blood there are still a few people within Germany and a few more around it, that want to allow the world to make the same mistakes allover again by trying to argue that germany was not to blame. Twice Germany has been found to be the guilty party, surely that should be enough to prove their war guilt beyond any doubt, and what they were capable of in their past. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of Germans in modern Germany want nothing to do with this sort of platitudes.

After the second Punic war, the romans decided to destroy Carthage, and as legend has it, plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood. perhaps the Romans of that time knew something that we have forgotten

 

[Tante Ju]

Tante

I dont dispute that Britain and France were exhausted, but they were not starving, they had largely defeated the blockade affecting them (the U-Boats). Germany on the other hand had not overcome their blockade.

Germany, unlike Britain was not very reliant on oversea import. France was not, too, but much of France was occupied or devastated during war. German internal supply problem was rooted in men and animal taken from farm. They, however, secured vast area of Soviet-Russia by 1918.. a very different situation than say 1917. And Germany was not starving during war - this came after war, as result of post-war Allied blockade.

As to Britain and France being on their knees, just like Germany, they sure had a funny way of showing that. Having defeated Ludendorfs final throw of the dice, with Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies, the allies were already busily destroying the German frontline defences on the western front, before the arrival of large numbers of Americans. Those American formations that were in the line were poorly trained and not in a position to immediately undertake heavy operations. They were mostly farmed out and given "instruction" on techniques learned so far. By wars end they were attacking independantly, and were going to tip the balance.

It is simple fact of history that Allied attacks did not achieve much - they pushed back German to their starting lines of their offensive. Just like German offensive earlier secured as much territory.
Study maps of conflict. Highly recommend for you. Western frontline was on the Belgium-France border.

I would like source "Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies". Very interest claim. Needs of army, food delivered. Information like that to make it look like more history, than funny thing.

Had the war progressed into 1919, the british were going to employ massed tanks on a sustained scale, properly organized (for 1918 ) and provided with better maintenance support. Cambrai had faltered because of a lack of manpower (occuring just after the Somme) and because of a massive breakdown rate. The Germans had no real answer to the American build up, the allied technology based counteroffensive. Black week saw the near total collapse of the german armies in the west, so i dont know where you get this notion that Germany was not defeated....rings very like the myths and lies that sprang up just after the war....."we wewrent defeated, we were just betrayed". No you were not betrayed, your armies were in defeat, and that was achieved by the allies, not by some mythical 5th column.

So, why did not they? Why did not just break the German line, instead of push back a couple of ten kilometer. Why still on Belgian border after four years? "Pipe dream", simple... could, would - It was a long way to Berlin. Everybody knew. The French were spent, morally. French soldier would die for France, but not in attack in no sense - French army rebelled in 1916, and refused to attack. They would defend, but not attack. But, you are right, if complete victory would prevent World War II happen. If, no else reason, because it would take the 1950s to actually reach Berlin at pace like real achieved 1918.. consider how difficult it was to cross even a few miles, I can make imagination if they could ever cross river like Rheine. A very difficult task, even 1945.

As for Russia causing the war, or france not sitting on their ass, Austria determined that it wanted to wage a war of agression against Serbia, rejected the accession by Serbia to all but one Austrian of the demands deliberately misled the French and the Russian delegations. Serbia was a Russian ally, so any move against Serbia is goiing to attract a russian resposne. Same for france.

Austria determined it would not smile and standby to Russian paid Serb terrorists assassinating members of it royal family (who, btw, was very pro-slavic within empire, against austro-hungarian dualism). The reason was he become target was he was in way of panslavic movement - all slavs are brothers, Russia being bigger brother who protect little ones, and just stay for a while when doing so..

Austria situation with Serbia was analoge to British involvement in war against Afganistan. You damn Austria for making steps against state for doing what now call terrorist harboring but do the same thing now with much less involvement and no ultimatum.
Serbia had option to choose to cooperate and stop anti-Austrian movements. Read Austrian ultimatum. You have not. All it asked to stop anti-Austrian nationalistic propaganda, stop terrorist organisation, and let Austrian judical authority present during trials of culprits of terrorists. There was no territory claim. There was no disarm your army request or such. Serbia refused, because Russia backed her. Both Serbia, and Russia know it means war with Austria, and if Russia enters, Germany will enter too. They choose the second scenario. I find it hard to blame, for Germans, not waiting stupidly until Tsarist army to mobilise, then French army to mobilise, and attack them. Instead, hit them first. Proper strategy, when you are big country surrounded by many smaller enemy who gang up on you, or are about to. Defeat them one by one. There is no law anywhere when you are about to be attacked, you have to sit down, with naive smile on your face.

There was way to avoid war, and this means, accept Austrian ulitmatum, which would not hurt Serbian soverignity too much (compare: US and UK lead coalition recently attacked and overrun Afganistan and Iraq for suspect of harboring terrorists), and Russia stop mobilisation of her army. They were told in clear term by Kaiser Wilhelm this will lead war if not stop.

If blame needs placed, it is at the doorstep of Tsar Nikolas II who wanted to solve internal political problems with glorious war. Such is the way of all dictators since long time.

I dont deny the French were dirty about the Franco Prussian war, bu they were closely allied to Russia, and Britain had given a long standing gurantee to Belgium since Napoleon. All these were known facts, yet Germany nevertheless chose to attack anyway. Tell me again Russia and france were responsible for the war. Who invaded who???????? What you are saying is, "why didnt the allies sit back and just let the central powers have their way with serbia?". Sorry, it doesnt work that way with allies working as allies.

Yes, Germany was ally of Austria. Russia was mobilising against Austria. Basic - you damn German and Austrian for not being stupid letting them fire first shot. In no law one who is about to be attacked has to wait until attack actually commences, he can defend himself against agressor - in this case this was Russia.

And all this doesnt get around the fact that Germany andf Austria, allies of their own, fired the first shots, caused everyone to react by their reckless acts, and comitted overtly agressive acts like invading Belgium....which make them guilty of initiating a war of aggression. Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.

And who buys England entered war because of Belgium? England entered war because it suited her, because she feared her colonies, which she overrun with military force just like any other invader before - Swiss, German, Russian, French, you name it.

I read World War I newspapers. Actually, I must say, they present more respecting view of war than your the old war propaganda you repeat. They have respect of enemy. They do not blend facts, or place blame. "Scrap heap of history" - this is where opinion like this belongs. You may like to place blame, but it is without facts, it is without moral highground. I suggest you study to work of Professor Blackadder!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA

It is aimed to place blame, not to understand events that lead to World War I. Great power of WW1 stood on a gunpowder magazine. And this magazine was largely built by the French. Russia was just careless kid who went to play with matches in it.

As to how I would break up Germany, the model for that exists in the post wwii occupation of the country. instead of occupying just parts, the allies should have occupied the whole country, dissolved whatever pissant government was in place maintained military administration until the country was rebuilt, the general staff dissolved, and the scourge of German militarism excorcised. It was possible 25 years later, after unconditional surrender was achieved, why not in 1918.

Because, in 1918, not like in 1945, there were an intact and effective German army, on foreign soil. With many million men, who had strong opinion of this suggestion.
Pipe dream of humiliating enemy - just that. Needs more to realize... realization which was, after four years of war, impossible for the entent. Even more "hawk" Enente leaders realized that, so such is the terms of WW1 peace treaty.

Turkey was far less state in power, but were far more successfull by simple hinting of resistance. By 1918 central power undoubtedly lost war, but were long way from unconditional surrender, or occupation.

 

[Tante Ju]

My opinion: The treaty was a failure because it was too easy on the germans. From ther, the makings of the second war were all of germany's making (well, except for Allied complacency). They chose to rearm, chose to abrogate the treaties that they had accepted, they gobbled up country after country, installed a meglomaniac as their leader, planned and prepred for war. None of these were forced on Germany. they chose this path. What the allies were guilty of was, firstly to trust germany and secondly to lack the will to enforce the weak treaty that they had helped create.

This , strangely enough has at least passing relevance to the topic. By following an essentially opportunitic pathway, the germans failed to plan and prepre for a long war the second time around. This affected their outputs and productivity and damned them to fighting a "poor mans war" the second time around. The allies prepred their nations for the long term haul and reaped benefits, eventually, from that approach.

none of this would have happened if unconditional surrender had been demanded the first time around. And if it hadnt been demanded in the 2nd war, we would have had to do it all again a third time around. And there are signs that even after all this effort and blood there are still a few people within Germany and a few more around it, that want to allow the world to make the same mistakes allover again by trying to argue that germany was not to blame. Twice Germany has been found to be the guilty party, surely that should be enough to prove their war guilt beyond any doubt, and what they were capable of in their past. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of Germans in modern Germany want nothing to do with this sort of platitudes.

After the second Punic war, the romans decided to destroy Carthage, and as legend has it, plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood. perhaps the Romans of that time knew something that we have forgotten

I think you are simply a German-hater. Why, I do not know. But words like "plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood" shows you are little more than a hate filled man, spilling out hate on this board. I am not sure why moderators allow it. I tried to look at it different, as different opinion, perhaps different culture, but it seems you are only hear to give room to such feeling of your, no matter what the topic.. I cannot read any topic interests me because of this display of hate anymore... I try to read up artylerry, some very good posts, actually, but only parsifal keep going on how uttless idiots German were because of their 17 cm long distance gun.. I keep readin Erich Hartman topic, again you parsifal starts tirade about how every German soldier was without honor.. now I read this topic, again it get side lead by your trolling and World War I propaganda repeat about "Hun" and Hun evil ways. I am very bored with this. You simply seem to exist because of your hatred, and this board is your vessel of channel this hatred. My ancestor fought German, for liberty, but I do not understand such hate even. Yet I can see history - which I love - in balanced way. Understand why country this or that did this or that. I like to understand the reason. I like to discuss. But then, always same guy, come and posts:

"Because they are evil, do not you get it?"

I see again and again that you have nothing more to communicate, than hate speech, put into various forms, rationalised in various matter. What is the reason, parsifal, why are you behaving so hateful? Actual, I am more interesting hearing of this reason than your dreams of doing something that will never more than pipe dream of few extremeist nationalist. There are such in every country. But lucky, very few. There is Klu Klux Klan in US, British "defence" nazis now in UK streets, neo nazi rallies in Germany, Russia, Slovakia.. I think you are one of them, those who spread hatered, and incite hate, place blame and downplay long enemy nation. But I can find only one thing common in these people. Not ideology. But frustration.

Thankfully, nations of Europe reconciled, and learned not to step on each other feet by now..

 

[Tante Ju]

ps. In my opinion, all the great wars between post-napoleonic era until the end of World War II was result of France not being able to swallow to be the "second fiddler" in Europe, the new situation that created by unification of Germany. A new centralized state emerged that was greater in populace, and resource, and equally well centralised as France. France that was up to that the "great evil" of Europe, driving all European wars in past 300 years since Italian wars to Napoleon. French ambition to be the first was at the root of all great wars: France was not accepting situation of great powers. It was turned when Schumann and de Gaulle realized it is simply no longer realistic political ambition. Accepting that lead to liveable compromise after 1945, and birth EU. But it took three times invasion of France to them to get the point.

 

[parsifal]

Tante

I do not hate Germans. I have family that are germans. But I do not forget which country was responsible for two world wars, and ultimately which country caused the deaths of roughly 50 million people, including roughly 10 million of their own (thats not my judgement, its the judgement of others, I just happen to agree with it). Thats distasteful i know, but it wasnt me who attempted to raise Versailles as an unequal and unfair treaty, or me that attempted to protray germany as the innocent victim in the war

I am not a neo nazi, or any other extremist that you care to try and pin on me or imply that i am. I have family and love of country and military service, I believe in the ideals of democracy and fair trial (which is a major difference between you and i. whereas, I may not agree with what you say, I would defend unto death your right to say that, you may not like what i say, but rather than defend my right to say it, would attempt to use the system to gag me somehow....so much for your belief and support of free speech and democracy IMO) . I defended the rights and freedoms of my country, and am proud that my country does not suffer so many of the afflictions that hound the nations of Europe thes days. I have grandfathers and countrymen that paid a heavy price for our complacency and german aggression, so I am sorry if that offends you. I have many friends who are holocaust survivors (or their descendants) , and they say that I am a defender of their rights to be heard, and the protection of what is left to them (but no I am not a nazi hunter either....just a voice that speaks for them and knows some of them). This includes making sure that their torturers, the reason for their suffering, are made never to forget. I do this because the Europe you so love, and think utopian has forgotten the price of the peace they now enjoy, and try hard to twist the truth of the past.

But I do not allow this to taint my judgement of the technical or apolitical issues. Looking at artillery, or aircraft, or campaigns requires a more analytical approach to that. But neither do i subscribe to the view that all things German are as near to perfect technically or operationally as is humanly possible. I applaud those parts of things german that were successful, and criticise those that are not so good. I do the same for all th nationalities we talk about. it just so happens that in the post war era so much hype and tripe has been generated about the German experiences, that it becomes necessary to correct these propaganda pieces again and again. I cant help that it you find that offensive or distasteful. I'm not going anywhere, and Im not asking you to go anywhere either, but if you find my comments so distasteful, then dont react, dont read them. Because you certainly wont stop me no matter how much you demonstrate against me. And people will decide for themselves whether they want to read what I say, or not. Thats not up to you my friend. And the mods will decide whether I am in bvreach of the codes that drive this place (I can tell you now we are both in breach because we are so far off topic its not funny....but then I was not the one to start accusing others of being a neo-nazi or a member of the national front or a member of the klu klux Klan either)

I do not believe that countries should be easily forgiven for that kind of crime, or allowed to explain away or discount the misdeeds done in the name of their nation. Germany has many misdeeds that she must be held to account for, and for a very long time because of the magnitude of her crimes , but unlike some I dont allow that murderous past to be forgotten or denied. Forgiven, yes, forgotten not for 1000 years, as long as the claims made by some of its leaders to dominate and terrorize the rest of Europe.

Are other countries guilty of waging aggressive wars? you bet. Has Britain and france waged aggressive wars, yes of course they have, but not so much in recent history. Its a question of degree, however. Just because france has aspirations for European dominance is a world away from actually attempting to carry it out using illegal means, or means likley to cause mass destruction. Looking after national interests is acceptable. Using limited force to achieve a greater good is acceptabl;e. Using maximum force to counter pure evil is acceptable. But using your states power to initiat evil, or mass murder, or aggressive war, is not acceptable. and there lies the difference.

When your national interests are perceived to be total domination of your neighbours, mass murder on an industrial scale, the instigation of aggressive offensive wars, thats where i draw the line. Were the french responsible for waging offensive wars of mass destruction against other european nations, were the british since 1900? no, and No. Were the Germans responsible for waging wars of aggression and mass destruction in the 20thcentury. Yes, twice in fact. Should they be allowed to forget that. No. Should we forget that. No. I have 50 million reasons to support that position, which is why I can say what i say and not draw too much ire from the controllers of this site (however we are so far off topic now that we will be told to get back on topic very soon i expect...I am ready and keen to do that any time, incidentally). I am not vilifying the germans as a people when I remind them of their forefathers crimes or the crimes committed in the name of their nation. I am standing for the truth about what Germany, as a nation is guilty of, and will never resile from that position. That kind of clarity and truthfulness is actually healthy for the modern Germany, because as a nation they will never make the same mistake again whilst they are not allowed to forget or rewrite their past

You should learn to deal with that, then we can move on.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Germany, unlike Britain was not very reliant on oversea import. France was not, too, but much of France was occupied or devastated during war. German internal supply problem was rooted in men and animal taken from farm. They, however, secured vast area of Soviet-Russia by 1918.. a very different situation than say 1917. And Germany was not starving during war - this came after war, as result of post-war Allied blockade.

Complete fabrication.

Germany suffered worse from the blockade than the UK ever did. See Chickering's history of the German Army on how rationing affected front line soldiers from 1917 onwards.

It is simple fact of history that Allied attacks did not achieve much - they pushed back German to their starting lines of their offensive. Just like German offensive earlier secured as much territory.
Study maps of conflict. Highly recommend for you. Western frontline was on the Belgium-France border.

Your buying into the widely discredited stab-in-the-back myth, much repeated in Germany in 1919, again in the mids 20s, again in 1933 and then by far-right elements post 1945.

The Allied final offensive pushed back the German front line 40-60 miles in two weeks, with little indication that Germany could stop it.

The German army was crippled in terms of morale (offensive spirit particularly) as well as suffering material deficiencies. Simply put, Germany could not sustain its army in the field and the high command knew it.


Germany's allies vanished over the four months prior to armistice. First the Bulgarians, then the Ottomans, then the Austro-Hungarians.

And who buys England entered war because of Belgium? England entered war because it suited her, because she feared her colonies, which she overrun with military force just like any other invader before - Swiss, German, Russian, French, you name it.

Which English colonies were affected or even threatened by Germany? England entered the war to satisfy her European treaty obligations, which in turn satisfied her Europe strategy of the previous 250 years: to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe.

Because, in 1918, not like in 1945, there were an intact and effective German army, on foreign soil. With many million men, who had strong opinion of this suggestion.

Ah, truth by repetition.

The Dolchstoss legend has been so widely discredited its a wonder that you'd bring it up at all.

 

[Readie]

Tante Ju,
You have lost the argument as soon as you start offensive name calling as your credibility goes into free fall.
John

 

[Readie]

ps. In my opinion, all the great wars between post-napoleonic era until the end of World War II was result of France not being able to swallow to be the "second fiddler" in Europe, the new situation that created by unification of Germany. A new centralized state emerged that was greater in populace, and resource, and equally well centralised as France. France that was up to that the "great evil" of Europe, driving all European wars in past 300 years since Italian wars to Napoleon. French ambition to be the first was at the root of all great wars: France was not accepting situation of great powers. It was turned when Schumann and de Gaulle realized it is simply no longer realistic political ambition. Accepting that lead to liveable compromise after 1945, and birth EU. But it took three times invasion of France to them to get the point.

Ummm.
France had her imperial aspirations ended at Waterloo.
Every European country was ambitious, its just that some were more successful in Empire creation than others.
The French were leading figures in the post war Treaty of Rome and have chosen to live within Europe in peace.
If you look at all the alliances / treaties within Europe over the centuries we have all been in bed with each other at some stage.
That's the biggest irony of all.
John

 

[Tante Ju]

Tante

I do not hate Germans. I have family that are germans. But I do not forget which country was responsible for two world wars, and ultimately which country caused the deaths of roughly 50 million people, including roughly 10 million of their own (thats not my judgement, its the judgement of others, I just happen to agree with it). Thats distasteful i know, but it wasnt me who attempted to raise Versailles as an unequal and unfair treaty, or me that attempted to protray germany as the innocent victim in the war

Sir, you are dead wrong on all account. Causes of World War I has great literature, and few have extremist views like yours anymore. The overwhelm majority of historians understand these reasons - France's wish for revenge, build up of two great coalitions, pan slavic movements destabilise Balkans, English German naval race etc. What you present simply ignores these, has vision of tunnel. Historians discredit your view.

You keep twist and simplify that history to propaganda piece. What you argue is Versailles was a correct treaty, because you connect it to deaths in World War II. All fault of Germany of course. I fail see, however, how is roughly 15 million victims of Japanese - Chinese war has anything to do with Hitler. That war started even before there was German army, LOL. And how do you blame Germany for 250 000 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in American Japanese war - again total no connection with European war, wheter you want to blame that all on Germans (which I am far more ready to believe than the propaganda about cause of World War I). How are Italian death in World War II you blame on Germany? Hmm. Just few examples how you propagadize things for hate..

Your claim that Germany was sole responsible for World War I is war propaganda. It has been discredit complete by generations of historians, and now few believe in such extreme, biased, and simple version of history of World War I, where there is one bad guy, the Hun, and good guys stood up against. This was WW1 Entente propaganda garbage, and I feel pity for you if you believe it.

After the second Punic war, the romans decided to destroy Carthage, and as legend has it, plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood. perhaps the Romans of that time knew something that we have forgotten

I would like believe you. But you have stated your wish pure and simple above. Your mask fallen, and now you try to put it back. But I do not forget what your desire of ploughing one country with salt means. You propagate here extermination of race as good solution. Keep dreaming.

I am not a neo nazi, or any other extremist that you care to try and pin on me or imply that i am.

Your words sound like one. When one propagates . Opinion of events - sure, discuss. But when I put your record together, when I see in every topic you go on accusation of German and German only, this BS about 'collective guilt' (yes, nice demokrat you are) and especially now you say that you find it tempting solution to demolish "Carthage", exterminate populace, sell them as slaves, and plough land with salt so that nothing grows, and dream about how this would be to be applied to Germans, then you will have EXTREME hard time me believe you as a not hater, and a democrat, and not an extremist. Your own words were weighted against you. I suggest instead of try to "explain" you should apologize.

I have family and love of country and military service, I believe in the ideals of democracy and fair trial (which is a major difference between you and i. whereas, I may not agree with what you say, I would defend unto death your right to say that, you may not like what i say, but rather than defend my right to say it, would attempt to use the system to gag me somehow....so much for your belief and support of free speech and democracy IMO) .

Like I said: I would believe if you have not display pure bloodthirst and advocated razing one country. I do no believe people who say one thing, clear manner, and then deny it. You said it what you said. Maybe you regret now say it, but not what you said I am sure. I am also sure that if somebody would start talk about how it would be nice to raze YOUR country would create some 'controvery'. And I think you just love that controvery creating, because then people pay attention to you.

In most country, freedom of speech is not without limits. Hate speech is illegal and is strongly punished by law. This is the democracy, there are rules, and the apply to everyone. What you descirbe is anarchos. Even if you do not like rules, most have accepted this as standard of good living together, where you excercise rights without hhurting other people rights. Nobody gave you "carte blanche" to insult other people, judge them, or present twisted hate propaganda, that is NOT your "democractic right". It is not democratic right to keep arranging the facts, silent about some, so the goal is to incite hate or place you in moral high ground.

And do not play the martyr, nazi sympatizer David Irving also try this. "Oh I was gagged.. oh there is no free speech". Trial means your words will be weighted against you. You have put up your defence, but I find you guilty of hate speech. You have went far away from simply express opinion - we can discuss cause of World War I, in topic about World War I. We can even discuss "guilty nations" - in its own topic. But stop kidnap threads with this again and again. You seem to be in conflict with a lot of people on this board, so perhaps - time to think really hard.

I defended the rights and freedoms of my country, and am proud that my country does not suffer so many of the afflictions that hound the nations of Europe thes days. I have grandfathers and countrymen that paid a heavy price for our complacency and german aggression, so I am sorry if that offends you. I have many friends who are holocaust survivors (or their descendants) , and they say that I am a defender of their rights to be heard, and the protection of what is left to them (but no I am not a nazi hunter either....just a voice that speaks for them and knows some of them). This includes making sure that their torturers, the reason for their suffering, are made never to forget. I do this because the Europe you so love, and think utopian has forgotten the price of the peace they now enjoy, and try hard to twist the truth of the past.

Yes, thank you, nobody asked you to be our judge or mentor. Europeans can judge themselves. We do not need people who grant themselves this right, especially if they have plenty of "butter behind their ears". I think Europe has gone further than everybody to deal with dark issues of the past. So did America - there were many problems with civil rights, racisms, things like that for US. But it is also exemplary how that great country dealt with those problems, on its own, by its own people, by its own long democratic institus.YOUR COUNTRY HAS NOT. So clean up your own porte, before you go advise others how to clean up theirs...

But I do not allow this to taint my judgement of the technical or apolitical issues. Looking at artillery, or aircraft, or campaigns requires a more analytical approach to that. But neither do i subscribe to the view that all things German are as near to perfect technically or operationally as is humanly possible. I applaud those parts of things german that were successful, and criticise those that are not so good.

it just so happens that in the post war era so much hype and tripe has been generated about the German experiences, that it becomes necessary to correct these propaganda pieces again and again.

I see point yours. Yes, perhaps German military prowness overstated by many; however, understating it is equal mistake. I also see that trying to avoid one extreme, you fall into other. Equal unhealthy.

I do the same for all th nationalities we talk about.

No, you simple do not.

I cant help that it you find that offensive or distasteful. I'm not going anywhere, and Im not asking you to go anywhere either, but if you find my comments so distasteful, then dont react, dont read them. Because you certainly wont stop me no matter how much you demonstrate against me. And people will decide for themselves whether they want to read what I say, or not. Thats not up to you my friend. And the mods will decide whether I am in bvreach of the codes that drive this place (I can tell you now we are both in breach because we are so far off topic its not funny....but then I was not the one to start accusing others of being a neo-nazi or a member of the national front or a member of the klu klux Klan either)

You started (again, like in many threads before) this guilt BS and placing the blame. Do not blame others for having strong opinion about this. Your provocative posts attract response. If you wish to discuss the "German guilt", I suggest you open your own thread for it. And not pollute every thread with this..