3rd July 2003, 1:05 PM
-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.
What...does that have to do with what I just said? That's a completely different thought from the paragraph I wrote. Yea, they all were confident of victory; but what difference does that mean...?
Wrong. Are you just taking up a countering position to me for the hell of it...? Did you ever stop and consider that maybe I'm right? Everyone was aggressive, but Germany above all...they were the ones who were driving to catch up to everyone else in the Imperial age.
You're absolutely right. It was France 1800-1815... and Germany in World War I. I never said France hadn't been aggressive; but YOU refused to admite that Germany was more at fault than anyone else for the war.
You're overanalyzing... it wasn't a war between different kinds of governments, it was a war between two rival camps of Europe. Whatever political government they had was was irrelevant.
You really believe this don't you. They did take counter steps against one another, but Germany initialized it by unstabling the power balance in 1871, dishonoring France, and then trying to become a respectable power. They went about it the wrong way. They could've unified without starting three wars and making powerful enemies.
I blame it more on the Austrian insertion into Serbia myself. If they hadn't been butting into Serbia and trying to annex it to begin with, their heir-apparent wouldn't have been assassinated.
No...Austria started the war by invading Serbia did. Serbia terrorists...no, more like a freedom fighter, trying to keep his country free of Austro-Hungarian tyranny.
Well, at least you admitted that it was Austria who did start the war; but only with the infamous "blank check". 'Sides, Austria is supremely incompetent in all warfare, going back centuries...they wouldn't have been a threat. Even at WWI, the Austrians were pushed out of Serbia by the tiny, hapless Serbian Army in just weeks. Without Germany, the war would've died quickly.
They did it to get back at Germany...it kept going back and forth, BUT IT STARTED IN 1871! Neither Britain nor France nor Germany had any aggression between one another since 1815...but when your buddy Bismark came into power, he unsettled everything, and set the course for war!
...WHAT!? They single-handedly developed it, and were the first to use it in battle! They DO get credit for it! How can you even deny that!
The end justifies the means? NO! Their surface fleet was on par with Britain's; don't make it sound like they were blockaded at Dresden! They had access to the ocean; and they did eventuall clash with the British fleet. "They had no choice"...are you for real!? That's like saying a murder who mugs and robs an old lady has no choice, because he needed the money...and that makes it acceptable.
Another non sequitur. I didn't say that they had to drop their alliance; their alliance, first of all, did NOT oblige them to defend Austria against Serbia. They did that on their own. They opted to hop into the war.
...do I even need to counter that...it's OK for Germany to secret an alliance with Mexico to openly attack the US... you'r...you're just CRAZY!
Very minor...? Allied propaganda...? What ARE you talking about! Was the holocaust "very minor" and "allied propaganda" too? The FACT is that the Belgians were mistreated by the Germans, who committed atrocities there. It is FACT!
Was your grandmother a nazi or something....? Why are you so stubbornly defending Germany; you can't win this anyway...it's common knowledge that Germany used to be an aggressive trouble maker.
Quote: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!
What...does that have to do with what I just said? That's a completely different thought from the paragraph I wrote. Yea, they all were confident of victory; but what difference does that mean...?
Quote: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!
Wrong. Are you just taking up a countering position to me for the hell of it...? Did you ever stop and consider that maybe I'm right? Everyone was aggressive, but Germany above all...they were the ones who were driving to catch up to everyone else in the Imperial age.
Quote: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...
You're absolutely right. It was France 1800-1815... and Germany in World War I. I never said France hadn't been aggressive; but YOU refused to admite that Germany was more at fault than anyone else for the war.
Quote: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...
You're overanalyzing... it wasn't a war between different kinds of governments, it was a war between two rival camps of Europe. Whatever political government they had was was irrelevant.
Quote: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...
You really believe this don't you. They did take counter steps against one another, but Germany initialized it by unstabling the power balance in 1871, dishonoring France, and then trying to become a respectable power. They went about it the wrong way. They could've unified without starting three wars and making powerful enemies.
Quote: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...
I blame it more on the Austrian insertion into Serbia myself. If they hadn't been butting into Serbia and trying to annex it to begin with, their heir-apparent wouldn't have been assassinated.
Quote:the Germans weren't the ones that started the war! Serbian terrorists did!
No...Austria started the war by invading Serbia did. Serbia terrorists...no, more like a freedom fighter, trying to keep his country free of Austro-Hungarian tyranny.
Quote: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...
Well, at least you admitted that it was Austria who did start the war; but only with the infamous "blank check". 'Sides, Austria is supremely incompetent in all warfare, going back centuries...they wouldn't have been a threat. Even at WWI, the Austrians were pushed out of Serbia by the tiny, hapless Serbian Army in just weeks. Without Germany, the war would've died quickly.
Quote: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...
They did it to get back at Germany...it kept going back and forth, BUT IT STARTED IN 1871! Neither Britain nor France nor Germany had any aggression between one another since 1815...but when your buddy Bismark came into power, he unsettled everything, and set the course for war!
Quote:Germany developed poison gas? So did everyone else! I don't think that any one side deserves special blame for THAT terror.
...WHAT!? They single-handedly developed it, and were the first to use it in battle! They DO get credit for it! How can you even deny that!
Quote: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.
The end justifies the means? NO! Their surface fleet was on par with Britain's; don't make it sound like they were blockaded at Dresden! They had access to the ocean; and they did eventuall clash with the British fleet. "They had no choice"...are you for real!? That's like saying a murder who mugs and robs an old lady has no choice, because he needed the money...and that makes it acceptable.
Quote: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...
Another non sequitur. I didn't say that they had to drop their alliance; their alliance, first of all, did NOT oblige them to defend Austria against Serbia. They did that on their own. They opted to hop into the war.
Quote: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...
...do I even need to counter that...it's OK for Germany to secret an alliance with Mexico to openly attack the US... you'r...you're just CRAZY!
Quote:Very minor isolated incidents blown up dramatically by the Allied propaganda corps. Worked brilliantly, even decades after we know the truth, I see.
Very minor...? Allied propaganda...? What ARE you talking about! Was the holocaust "very minor" and "allied propaganda" too? The FACT is that the Belgians were mistreated by the Germans, who committed atrocities there. It is FACT!
Was your grandmother a nazi or something....? Why are you so stubbornly defending Germany; you can't win this anyway...it's common knowledge that Germany used to be an aggressive trouble maker.
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST