1st July 2003, 6:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 1st July 2003, 6:21 PM by A Black Falcon.)
I'll say something. First, noone else seems to know or care enough about history to want to participate.
How about we talk about Russia... in the last school year I took two semesters of Russian history. :) I haven't taken Western European since senior year over 2 years ago... freshman year in college the two history classes I took were Asian.
The Kaiser was an idiot. I said that already. And I also said that the British were just as culpable. Yes, that Kaiser was stupid and thought that he could just win the war without much trouble. But SO DID THE REST OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE WHOLE CONTINENT! The British and French were just as sure that the war would be an easy victory!
As for the rest... those are historical facts, mostly. And all of them did increase the tension in Europe to help bring it to that breaking point it hit in 1914. But you present just one part of the argument! There are just as many points that support why other nations were just as at fault for the problems! Sure, Germany was expansionist and agressive. I know that. Its obviously true. But that's no different from anyone else!
Everyone was militarizing. And various nations did get expansionist. In Napoleon's time it was France. In the late 1800s and early 1900s it was Germany. Sure. The only difference was the weapons being used, really...
Yes, they did do things that isolated them from Britain and France. That was pretty much inevitable too given the progression of society -- Britain and France as democracies while Germany was an empire... it naturally put them in league with the Austrians, Russians, and Turks... until of course the Russians and Germans antagonized eachother too much and they became enemies as well. But given their long history of hostility and border arguements that is hardly surprising...
Yes, the Germans were expansionist and pressed the issue. but the Allies pressed it too. Every time one side took a step, the other matched it... when one league was formed, so was another. And when one collapsed a new one quickly formed... this happened for so many decades (all through the later second half of the 1800s) that they really grew to believe their stories that these alliances would prevent war... after all, they had worked so far...
The Germans were expanding. But the other European nations were hardly sitting around doing nothing either! The Russians were quite expansionist in this timeframe as well... its their pressing to get more Balkan influence that led to the sparks that set off this whole mess... the Germans weren't the ones that started the war! Serbian terrorists did! Then Austria pressed Serbia to allow them to put Austrian troops in Serbian land to search for them... the Serbs promised to find them themselves but that wasn't good enough for Austria so they attacked. Sure, it was with Germany's tacit concent with that check... but it wasn't Germany that decided to start the war. They did want to fight, I think... or at least the Kaiser did. And he had the power...
But its hardly like Germany was to blame for the situation that brought the world to that point. You cannot just say "they were expansionist and imposed a harsh treaty on France in the Franco-Prussian War so they are guilty"! It just doesn't work that way! Yes that hurt, and helped escalate tensions, but blaming them for harsh peace treaties? Everyone did that! France and Britain did after WW1, for example...
Germany developed poison gas? So did everyone else! I don't think that any one side deserves special blame for THAT terror.
Submarine warfare... yes, they did fight unrestricted submarine warfare. But if you're such a military historian you'd know that they had absolutely no choice. Their surface fleet was stuck in the Baltic Sea by the British Fleet... all they had in the Atlantic were the subs. And subs CANNOT GIVE WARNING AND BE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING VESSELS! They tried that, but it failed miserably so they were forced to use the unrestricted warfare... they didn't want to, because they knew that it'd probably drag the US into the war in short notice, but they had to because they needed to sink those transport ships... and that was the only way to do it. They had no choice if they wanted a chance in the war.
As for alliances... are you honestly saying that you think they'd just drop their alliance at that point? Why would they do that? Just like the Allies they were sure that it was the alliance that would keep war away, since no one wanted a continent-wide crisis...
And besides, they'd naturally think that its a case of 'okay I'll disarm, but you go first'... where no one actually will because they are too suspicious of the other side.
No, that is too unrealistic a expectation to blame them for not taking.
Given that by that point the US was supporting Britain pretty strongly, I can't blame them much... especially once we factor in the possibility that it was a fake written by British intelligence to try to get the US into the war quicker. That's a possibility. after all... the wire lines went through England...
Very minor isolated incidents blown up dramatically by the Allied propaganda corps. Worked brilliantly, even decades after we know the truth, I see.
How about we talk about Russia... in the last school year I took two semesters of Russian history. :) I haven't taken Western European since senior year over 2 years ago... freshman year in college the two history classes I took were Asian.
Quote:-Germany's longing for conquest and an international empire had the Kaiser compete with Britain in a massive naval arms race. Both wanted to be supreme, and this pitted them against one another. Were the Kaiser not so thirsty for conquest and glory this wouldn't have happened.
The Kaiser was an idiot. I said that already. And I also said that the British were just as culpable. Yes, that Kaiser was stupid and thought that he could just win the war without much trouble. But SO DID THE REST OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE WHOLE CONTINENT! The British and French were just as sure that the war would be an easy victory!
As for the rest... those are historical facts, mostly. And all of them did increase the tension in Europe to help bring it to that breaking point it hit in 1914. But you present just one part of the argument! There are just as many points that support why other nations were just as at fault for the problems! Sure, Germany was expansionist and agressive. I know that. Its obviously true. But that's no different from anyone else!
Everyone was militarizing. And various nations did get expansionist. In Napoleon's time it was France. In the late 1800s and early 1900s it was Germany. Sure. The only difference was the weapons being used, really...
Yes, they did do things that isolated them from Britain and France. That was pretty much inevitable too given the progression of society -- Britain and France as democracies while Germany was an empire... it naturally put them in league with the Austrians, Russians, and Turks... until of course the Russians and Germans antagonized eachother too much and they became enemies as well. But given their long history of hostility and border arguements that is hardly surprising...
Yes, the Germans were expansionist and pressed the issue. but the Allies pressed it too. Every time one side took a step, the other matched it... when one league was formed, so was another. And when one collapsed a new one quickly formed... this happened for so many decades (all through the later second half of the 1800s) that they really grew to believe their stories that these alliances would prevent war... after all, they had worked so far...
The Germans were expanding. But the other European nations were hardly sitting around doing nothing either! The Russians were quite expansionist in this timeframe as well... its their pressing to get more Balkan influence that led to the sparks that set off this whole mess... the Germans weren't the ones that started the war! Serbian terrorists did! Then Austria pressed Serbia to allow them to put Austrian troops in Serbian land to search for them... the Serbs promised to find them themselves but that wasn't good enough for Austria so they attacked. Sure, it was with Germany's tacit concent with that check... but it wasn't Germany that decided to start the war. They did want to fight, I think... or at least the Kaiser did. And he had the power...
But its hardly like Germany was to blame for the situation that brought the world to that point. You cannot just say "they were expansionist and imposed a harsh treaty on France in the Franco-Prussian War so they are guilty"! It just doesn't work that way! Yes that hurt, and helped escalate tensions, but blaming them for harsh peace treaties? Everyone did that! France and Britain did after WW1, for example...
Quote:-Germany developed and was the first to use poison gas (chemical warfare.)
Germany developed poison gas? So did everyone else! I don't think that any one side deserves special blame for THAT terror.
Quote:-Germany practiced unrestricted submarine warfare, and respected no banner of neutrality.
Submarine warfare... yes, they did fight unrestricted submarine warfare. But if you're such a military historian you'd know that they had absolutely no choice. Their surface fleet was stuck in the Baltic Sea by the British Fleet... all they had in the Atlantic were the subs. And subs CANNOT GIVE WARNING AND BE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING VESSELS! They tried that, but it failed miserably so they were forced to use the unrestricted warfare... they didn't want to, because they knew that it'd probably drag the US into the war in short notice, but they had to because they needed to sink those transport ships... and that was the only way to do it. They had no choice if they wanted a chance in the war.
Quote:-Germany could've avoided the interlocking alliances by replying to the ultimatum Britain ordered in August...and it wasn't a demanding one, either; only requesting CEASE AND DESIST!
As for alliances... are you honestly saying that you think they'd just drop their alliance at that point? Why would they do that? Just like the Allies they were sure that it was the alliance that would keep war away, since no one wanted a continent-wide crisis...
And besides, they'd naturally think that its a case of 'okay I'll disarm, but you go first'... where no one actually will because they are too suspicious of the other side.
No, that is too unrealistic a expectation to blame them for not taking.
Quote:-The Zimmerman Telegram to Mexico proves their hostility ABROAD and desire to expand the war.
Given that by that point the US was supporting Britain pretty strongly, I can't blame them much... especially once we factor in the possibility that it was a fake written by British intelligence to try to get the US into the war quicker. That's a possibility. after all... the wire lines went through England...
Quote:-Germany committed atrocities against the Belgians while occupying most of that country; these turned the world opinion against them.
Very minor isolated incidents blown up dramatically by the Allied propaganda corps. Worked brilliantly, even decades after we know the truth, I see.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}