3rd July 2003, 7:21 PM
Ack, second half of the 19th century European politics... I can't remember the details of the Franco-Prussian war, really... I remember the Crimean War much better though, given how we covered that last year in school (as opposed to over 2 1/2 years since I've had Western European history).
That while they were vital to setting off the war no one is without blame, and they had no clue what they were getting into...
Yes, of course they were trying to catch up. They had finally gotten their nation together for the first time and didn't want to be left behind everyone else...
Then why did the Western Allies say that they were protecting Democracy? Just for propaganda value while they supported Czarist Russia?
No, I think that differences in political structure did matter. Not as an absolute defining line, obviously, but they did matter...
What, you expect the major European powers to all agree on peace in that era? That's a bit ... unrealistic ...
Yes, Germany was pressing outwards... like others before it... but you make it sound like it is they alone who are responsible for all of it. That is just simply false... alliances were bound to form given the political situation of the time, and with that comes some kind of eventual confrontation... so the sides weren't certain but I don't see how they could have completely avoided the two World Wars.
But the Serbians wouldn't have been agitating and standing up to Austria if they hadn't had Russia there at their back with a close alliance, that's for sure!
You think they could unite without making enemies? Really? Not with the way they were, I doubt it... sure they didn't have to do it as they did, but confilict was inevitable... the French and Germans weren't exactly friends before that point...
Absolutely Austria was incompetent. Its a big reason why the war happened of course... Austria just wasn't competent enough to fight Serbia alone so all the alliances started being called... and at that point Europe was a gas-filled room just waiting for a match to blow it up.
And both sides are responsible for it getting to that situation. Yes, the Germans pressed... but so did the others back just as hard...
Oh, and they weren't exactly constantly warmongering... not like Napoleon's France, which burned itsself out in just a few decades...
Somewhat, but the level of mistreatment wasn't even REMOTELY close to the levels that the Allied propaganda portrayed. That is a FACT too.
I didn't say its okay... I said it might be fake. :)
The British would have lots of reasons to want a message like that to be intercepted, after all...
If it is real it is bad... not unexpected given the way America was clearly turning at that point, but bad.
The British Surface Fleet was equal to the German one, but the German one was stuck. The British could easily block them from getting out... meaning that exactly as I said U-Boats were their only weapon against the convoys that they needed desperately to sink to hurt Britain.
And the much more moral allies of course refused to use it too?
First, no one had a clue that their actions would lead to a major world war. They just reacted to the events...
Second, a world war at that point was inevitable -- the two armed camps hated eachother and were looking for any excuse they could find to fight. Serbia just provided that excuse.
Is that atmosphere partly Germany's fault? Of course! But are they the sole group responsible? NO WAY! Not even close!
Quote: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...?
That while they were vital to setting off the war no one is without blame, and they had no clue what they were getting into...
Quote: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.
Yes, of course they were trying to catch up. They had finally gotten their nation together for the first time and didn't want to be left behind everyone else...
Quote: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.
Then why did the Western Allies say that they were protecting Democracy? Just for propaganda value while they supported Czarist Russia?
No, I think that differences in political structure did matter. Not as an absolute defining line, obviously, but they did matter...
Quote: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.
What, you expect the major European powers to all agree on peace in that era? That's a bit ... unrealistic ...
Yes, Germany was pressing outwards... like others before it... but you make it sound like it is they alone who are responsible for all of it. That is just simply false... alliances were bound to form given the political situation of the time, and with that comes some kind of eventual confrontation... so the sides weren't certain but I don't see how they could have completely avoided the two World Wars.
Quote: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.
But the Serbians wouldn't have been agitating and standing up to Austria if they hadn't had Russia there at their back with a close alliance, that's for sure!
Quote: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.
You think they could unite without making enemies? Really? Not with the way they were, I doubt it... sure they didn't have to do it as they did, but confilict was inevitable... the French and Germans weren't exactly friends before that point...
Quote: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.
Absolutely Austria was incompetent. Its a big reason why the war happened of course... Austria just wasn't competent enough to fight Serbia alone so all the alliances started being called... and at that point Europe was a gas-filled room just waiting for a match to blow it up.
And both sides are responsible for it getting to that situation. Yes, the Germans pressed... but so did the others back just as hard...
Oh, and they weren't exactly constantly warmongering... not like Napoleon's France, which burned itsself out in just a few decades...
Quote: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!
Somewhat, but the level of mistreatment wasn't even REMOTELY close to the levels that the Allied propaganda portrayed. That is a FACT too.
Quote:...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!
I didn't say its okay... I said it might be fake. :)
The British would have lots of reasons to want a message like that to be intercepted, after all...
If it is real it is bad... not unexpected given the way America was clearly turning at that point, but bad.
Quote: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.
The British Surface Fleet was equal to the German one, but the German one was stuck. The British could easily block them from getting out... meaning that exactly as I said U-Boats were their only weapon against the convoys that they needed desperately to sink to hurt Britain.
Quote:...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!
And the much more moral allies of course refused to use it too?
Quote: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.
First, no one had a clue that their actions would lead to a major world war. They just reacted to the events...
Second, a world war at that point was inevitable -- the two armed camps hated eachother and were looking for any excuse they could find to fight. Serbia just provided that excuse.
Is that atmosphere partly Germany's fault? Of course! But are they the sole group responsible? NO WAY! Not even close!