[Quintus Curtius]

@Que enspastic:

Thanks for sharing that. I'd love to see photos of other memorials that RVF members may have visited, or are in their countries.

Q

[samsamsam]

(06-29-2014 03:18 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 12:18 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 11:13 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 09:03 AM)turuk Wrote:  

I don't think UK joining WW1 was the gamer changer. Germany and their allies would have easy man-handled UK.

It was US that joined WW1 when seeing the Germans and their allies winning that changed the outcome of WW1.

This is what we hear about WWII as well and in both cases it's little more than Western chest beating. The allies took 10M losses on the eastern front as opposed to 7M on the western.

There was no real game changer in WWI it was just pure attrition where the Allies could afford a higher number of losses before their order of battle threatened to collapse.

But isn't the ability to outlast your opponent a key quality/strength? Back in the day when towns were under siege, didn't many surrender because they ran out of supplies, etc.?

My point is you can't blame countries for having more resources. War isn't about fairness which would also imply respect. If they had respect for one another, they would never have started a fight/battle/war in the first place.

I don't disagree but I don't see how it's relevant to me showing how the US entry was a "game changer".

US also brought more resources and fresh energy. From what I understand, the forces on both sides were pretty tired by the point of the US entry. Also, from what I understand, the Allies may have won despite US entry because the Germans were doing pretty badly at point.

But what may hint to US entry as a game changer was the Spring Offensive of 1918. Per wikipedia.

Quote:

The 1918 Spring Offensive or Kaiserschlacht (Kaiser's Battle), also known as the Ludendorff Offensive, was a series of German attacks along the Western Front during the First World War, beginning on 21 March 1918, which marked the deepest advances by either side since 1914. The Germans had realised that their only remaining chance of victory was to defeat the Allies before the overwhelming human and matériel resources of the United States could be fully deployed.

[Lizard King]

(05-31-2014 05:40 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Immediately post-war: Germany at fault
1920s:
Barnes (1925): France and Russia cause the war
Fay (1928): Russia, Serbia, Germany, Austria-Hungary at fault
Schmitt (Traditionalist): Germany at fault
1930s-1960: Continuation of the 1920s debates
1960s: Fischer's book- Germany is completely at fault.
Ferguson (1966): UK is at fault
Today:
Clark (2011): Serbia at fault

Basically, the historiographic arguments are unbelievably circular. I fall into a mid-traditionalist point of view. I believe that Germany is at fault for the war, but Russia and Austria-Hungary are also at fault. While elements of the Serbian government are at fault, Serbia as a whole is not.

I think WW1 was a way for Britain to 'clip Germany's wings'.

Therefore, it was Britain's fault.

Which is probably why in Britain, it is mistakenly viewed as some glorious defeat of an evil empire. The reality is that young Germany was rapidly catching up on Britain in terms of military size, and had eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output(could be wrong there, can't be bothered to check). Imperial Germany was a massive economic threat to the British Empire.

I also agree with Lenin's views on WW1 . For anyone interested, read: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Essentially he argues that it was a war of empires for control of Europe.

The Serbian angle is often not looked at fully. Albania.

Prior to WW1, Albania was created(much like Kosovo was) by the Western powers, in an attempt to curb the Russian empire, and keep it from securing access to a warm water port(sound familiar?).

So when Serbia was threatened by Austro-Hungary, Russia had to intervene, then Germany had to follow through on their alliance, and Britain/France on theirs. bang.

[Orion]

(05-31-2014 05:40 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 11:33 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I just checked out from the local library the audio book (18 CDs) of Max Hasting's "Catastrophe 1914". I have high expectations. Hastings and John Keegan are two of my favorite modern military historians, and never fail to impress.

The Hastings book is mediocre, in my opinion.

For the history geeks here (I plead guilty), I've found that the literature of "who caused World War I" is very circular. Basically, here's how it goes:

Immediately post-war: Germany at fault
1920s:
Barnes (1925): France and Russia cause the war
Fay (1928): Russia, Serbia, Germany, Austria-Hungary at fault
Schmitt (Traditionalist): Germany at fault
1930s-1960: Continuation of the 1920s debates
1960s: Fischer's book- Germany is completely at fault.
Ferguson (1966): UK is at fault
Today:
Clark (2011): Serbia at fault

Basically, the historiographic arguments are unbelievably circular. I fall into a mid-traditionalist point of view. I believe that Germany is at fault for the war, but Russia and Austria-Hungary are also at fault. While elements of the Serbian government are at fault, Serbia as a whole is not.

Yes, that anti-Serbian schizophrenia is quite popular with European left-wing cultists because they are prepared for any kind of savageness to make their pan-European project work and hush any signs of division among it's members, and who is a better target to bear that weight but a minor nation in the Balkans, which was portrayed for 20 years as an Afghanistan with half drunk baby slaughtering cossacks

Btw, Unification or Death movement (also known as Black Hand) was a clandestine organization. That's why it was removed during the war, because Karađorđević dynasty could not control it. It's leader, Colonel Apis brought that dynasty to the throne in the first place, by violently overthrowing previous one. That's why it was thorn in the eye of Serbian rulers too. There are some views who even claim that they were republican, but i don't think that is credible.

Black Hand also tried to assassinate King of Montenegro in order to remove him as an obstacle to union of Serbia and Montenegro. Their methods were quite advanced for the era, and almost mirror those of later such organizations through Europe. All similar movements prior, represented that typical guerrilla type of combat around countryside, but not them, they infiltrated ruling layers and worked beyond borders of Kingdom of Serbia. Assassination of Austrian heir was certainly a bold move, but very suspicious. Who knows why leaders of Black Hand were really tried and executed during Salonika trials.

[Enki]

[Quintus Curtius]

^^

@Enki:

Did you draw this, man?

[Enki]

(07-07-2014 07:24 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^

@Enki:

Did you draw this, man?

Haha I wish! I stumbled upon it a while ago and thought it was pretty entertaining.

If you like it, you should probably check the other two comics done by the same guy:

World War Two: Simple Version

Cold War: Simple Version

[Truth Teller]

(06-30-2014 03:34 PM)Trev Wrote:  

I think WW1 was a way for Britain to 'clip Germany's wings'.

Therefore, it was Britain's fault.

Which is probably why in Britain, it is mistakenly viewed as some glorious defeat of an evil empire. The reality is that young Germany was rapidly catching up on Britain in terms of military size, and had eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output(could be wrong there, can't be bothered to check). Imperial Germany was a massive economic threat to the British Empire.

I also agree with Lenin's views on WW1 . For anyone interested, read: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Essentially he argues that it was a war of empires for control of Europe.

The Serbian angle is often not looked at fully. Albania.

Prior to WW1, Albania was created(much like Kosovo was) by the Western powers, in an attempt to curb the Russian empire, and keep it from securing access to a warm water port(sound familiar?).

So when Serbia was threatened by Austro-Hungary, Russia had to intervene, then Germany had to follow through on their alliance, and Britain/France on theirs. bang.

It's late, and I'm really jet lagged/worn out, so I'm not going to go through this point by point, but take a look at Fischer's book and reconsider this. I would contend that the majority of evidence doesn't support Ferguson's or Barnes' viewpoints.

I may go through this point for point tomorrow.

[Lizard King]

(07-08-2014 12:47 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-30-2014 03:34 PM)Trev Wrote:  

I think WW1 was a way for Britain to 'clip Germany's wings'.

Therefore, it was Britain's fault.

Which is probably why in Britain, it is mistakenly viewed as some glorious defeat of an evil empire. The reality is that young Germany was rapidly catching up on Britain in terms of military size, and had eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output(could be wrong there, can't be bothered to check). Imperial Germany was a massive economic threat to the British Empire.

I also agree with Lenin's views on WW1 . For anyone interested, read: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Essentially he argues that it was a war of empires for control of Europe.

The Serbian angle is often not looked at fully. Albania.

Prior to WW1, Albania was created(much like Kosovo was) by the Western powers, in an attempt to curb the Russian empire, and keep it from securing access to a warm water port(sound familiar?).

So when Serbia was threatened by Austro-Hungary, Russia had to intervene, then Germany had to follow through on their alliance, and Britain/France on theirs. bang.

It's late, and I'm really jet lagged/worn out, so I'm not going to go through this point by point, but take a look at Fischer's book and reconsider this. I would contend that the majority of evidence doesn't support Ferguson's or Barnes' viewpoints.

I may go through this point for point tomorrow.

No problem.

I'm merely stating my own views, based on a moderate digestion of the historiography. I realise my view is simplistic, and less nuanced than the scholars in this field.

Which Fischer book? I'll look through the thread to see if you mention the title.

[Truth Teller]

It's called Germany's Aims in the First World War, by Fritz Fischer. It's somewhat infamous in academic circles.

[Truth Teller]

Quote:

I think WW1 was a way for Britain to 'clip Germany's wings'.

Therefore, it was Britain's fault.

Which is probably why in Britain, it is mistakenly viewed as some glorious defeat of an evil empire. The reality is that young Germany was rapidly catching up on Britain in terms of military size, and had eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output(could be wrong there, can't be bothered to check). Imperial Germany was a massive economic threat to the British Empire.

I also agree with Lenin's views on WW1 . For anyone interested, read: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Essentially he argues that it was a war of empires for control of Europe.

The Serbian angle is often not looked at fully. Albania.

Prior to WW1, Albania was created(much like Kosovo was) by the Western powers, in an attempt to curb the Russian empire, and keep it from securing access to a warm water port(sound familiar?).

So when Serbia was threatened by Austro-Hungary, Russia had to intervene, then Germany had to follow through on their alliance, and Britain/France on theirs. bang.

Okay, I said that I would go through this point for point, so I will.

First, I don't believe that Britain started the war, and if you think about it logically and historically, it doesn't make any sense. The British declare war on August 4th, stating that Belgium has to be kept neutral and that they're entering the war in order to protect Belgian neutrality. This is clearly a crock because the British want to protect their sea trade, which they nearly fail to do anyway.

Between 1900 and 1914, Germany does become an economic superpower. They attempt to build a fleet to rival the British Grand Fleet, but give up due to the fact that it's incredibly expensive and creating tensions with the British. The Germans actually want the British to support them, and during the July Crisis, the Germans really attempt to avoid offending Britain, knowing that the Royal Navy is incredibly powerful. Von Tirpitz is not stupid, and he realizes that any attempt to go up against the British with a fleet less powerful than the Royal Navy will end in failure. Indeed, when the Kaiser calls for war in 1912, it's Von Tirpitz who refuses to go along, knowing that the High Seas Fleet is far too weak.

The issue with saying that Albania was created to prevent access to a warm water port is that the Russians already had one at Sevastopol.

What happens is that the Black Hand assassinates Franz Ferdinand, for which the Serbian government is (somewhat truthfully) blamed. The Austro-Hungarians are issued the so-called Blank Check, and know that Germany will support them regardless of what they do. As a result, the Serbians get an ultimatum which they largely agree to, but it has the stipulation that the Black Hand be tried in Serbia under Austro-Hungarian officials. Of course, the Serbians refuse and the Austro-Hungarians mobilize.

The Austro-Hungarians mobilize and then the Russians begin to mobilize in response to reports of German mobilization. With Russian mobilization comes French mobilization, and so on and so forth.

The British join to safeguard their control of the seas, and largely rejected any defensive pact with the French throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Germans had been agitating for a war since 1912, if you can believe Fischer, and the Russians and French both had their own reasons for wanting a war.

If you want to know more, PM me, and I'll send you a 12 page paper I wrote for a class on this subject.

[Lizard King]

(07-08-2014 03:44 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Quote:

I think WW1 was a way for Britain to 'clip Germany's wings'.

Therefore, it was Britain's fault.

Which is probably why in Britain, it is mistakenly viewed as some glorious defeat of an evil empire. The reality is that young Germany was rapidly catching up on Britain in terms of military size, and had eclipsed Britain in terms of industrial output(could be wrong there, can't be bothered to check). Imperial Germany was a massive economic threat to the British Empire.

I also agree with Lenin's views on WW1 . For anyone interested, read: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Essentially he argues that it was a war of empires for control of Europe.

The Serbian angle is often not looked at fully. Albania.

Prior to WW1, Albania was created(much like Kosovo was) by the Western powers, in an attempt to curb the Russian empire, and keep it from securing access to a warm water port(sound familiar?).

So when Serbia was threatened by Austro-Hungary, Russia had to intervene, then Germany had to follow through on their alliance, and Britain/France on theirs. bang.

Okay, I said that I would go through this point for point, so I will.

First, I don't believe that Britain started the war, and if you think about it logically and historically, it doesn't make any sense. The British declare war on August 4th, stating that Belgium has to be kept neutral and that they're entering the war in order to protect Belgian neutrality. This is clearly a crock because the British want to protect their sea trade, which they nearly fail to do anyway.

Between 1900 and 1914, Germany does become an economic superpower. They attempt to build a fleet to rival the British Grand Fleet, but give up due to the fact that it's incredibly expensive and creating tensions with the British. The Germans actually want the British to support them, and during the July Crisis, the Germans really attempt to avoid offending Britain, knowing that the Royal Navy is incredibly powerful. Von Tirpitz is not stupid, and he realizes that any attempt to go up against the British with a fleet less powerful than the Royal Navy will end in failure. Indeed, when the Kaiser calls for war in 1912, it's Von Tirpitz who refuses to go along, knowing that the High Seas Fleet is far too weak.

The issue with saying that Albania was created to prevent access to a warm water port is that the Russians already had one at Sevastopol.

What happens is that the Black Hand assassinates Franz Ferdinand, for which the Serbian government is (somewhat truthfully) blamed. The Austro-Hungarians are issued the so-called Blank Check, and know that Germany will support them regardless of what they do. As a result, the Serbians get an ultimatum which they largely agree to, but it has the stipulation that the Black Hand be tried in Serbia under Austro-Hungarian officials. Of course, the Serbians refuse and the Austro-Hungarians mobilize.

The Austro-Hungarians mobilize and then the Russians begin to mobilize in response to reports of German mobilization. With Russian mobilization comes French mobilization, and so on and so forth.

The British join to safeguard their control of the seas, and largely rejected any defensive pact with the French throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Germans had been agitating for a war since 1912, if you can believe Fischer, and the Russians and French both had their own reasons for wanting a war.

If you want to know more, PM me, and I'll send you a 12 page paper I wrote for a class on this subject.

I am aware of all that from my own recent studies, which will possibly be ongoing in the next academic year.

I was not trying to state a 'how it really is' summation of the causes and triggers, which as you know are multiple and complex.

Instead I was merely stating my own views, in a simple way, for people who have not had to digest the colossal amount of historiography, in order that they may see that there are many valid views.

My view of 'History' is that it is merely opinion shaped by facts. This type of History is very prominent in the UK, where, as I said previously, WW1 is viewed as some kind of glorious slaughter of young men in a good vs evil scenario. A point of view I detest, and find grossly devoid of historical context.

I maintain that WW1 was advantageous for Britain; or rather, the British ruling elite, since any act or incident that involves mass slaughter of a nation is hardly 'good' for it.

To drive this point home, we need only look at the Versailles Treaty and the Sykes-Picot agreement. Basically pure imperialism, the consequences of which we are still seeing today. As you probably know, most historians view WW1 and WW2 as one large war, with a break in between.

Germany were not even allowed to take part in the Versailles treaty, and Germany's 'castration' as a result of it, is seen by many as the seed which grew National Socialist(Nazi) Germany, and then WW2, in which 60-70 million people(mostly civilians) died.

[Truth Teller]

Versailles was a disaster, and history IS opinion shaped by facts. People often confuse the facts of history (what actually happened) with historical analysis, which is based on opinion and interpretation.

[Orion]

Versailles itself is not problem, problem is that Versailles was not enforced when necessary, for whatever reasons.

[Truth Teller]

(07-09-2014 07:13 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Versailles itself is not problem, problem is that Versailles was not enforced when necessary, for whatever reasons.

Well, yes and no. Versailles imposed a number of unreasonable requirements onto Germany. The issue really is that the League of Nations didn't function as intended, but whether or not the absence of the US caused that is debatable.

[Orion]

Unreasonable ?

There is a price to pay for starting a world war and losing it. Germany did not pay it, and so they thought "hell, why not try again".

First time Germany started to expand it's army beyond Versailles terms, France and allies should have intervened and prevented it.

Instead they thought "why not let nationalists take power in Germany, maybe something good will come out of it, and while we are at it, let them occupy a bunch of neighboring nations".

As soon as they read Mein Kampf, and seen that Hitler's goal is east, which means Russia and Poland, well, they had perfect solution for their worries

[Comte De St. Germain]

Versailles was definitely unreasonable, but let us think historically. If a country was completely taken over by the opponent's armies in a War instead of fought to a stalemate then they get turned into a puppet or conquered. That was what essentially what Versailles did. Make Germany a puppet in order to destroy it, but at the same time keep ethnic Germans there without having them flee.

[Orion]

Ok, for you being punished heavily for starting a world war and losing it is unreasonable, for me it is justified. Same thing goes for Hungary too. You simply don't lose two world wars and go unpunished.

[Sp5]

David Stockman: If only the U.S. had stayed out of WW I

Quote:

. . . . . . Had President Woodrow Wilson not misled the U.S. on a messianic crusade, Europe’s Great War would have ended in mutual exhaustion in 1917.

Both sides would have gone home battered and bankrupt — but would not have presented any danger to the rest of mankind.

Indeed, absent Wilson’s crusade, there would have been no allied victory, no punitive peace — and no war reparations. Nor would there have been a Leninist coup in Petrograd — or later on, the emergence of Stalin’s barbaric regime.

Likewise, there would have been no Hitler, no Nazi dystopia, no Munich, no Sudetenland and Danzig corridor crises, no need for a British war to save Poland, no final solution and Holocaust, no global war against Germany and Japan — and, finally, no incineration of 200,000 civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nor would all of these events have been followed by a Cold War with the Soviets or CIA-sponsored coups and assassinations in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile and the Congo, to name just a few.

Surely, there would have been no CIA plot to assassinate Castro, or Russian missiles in Cuba or a crisis that took the world to the brink of annihilation.

There would have been no Dulles brothers, no domino theory and no Vietnam slaughter, either. Nor would the U.S. have launched a war in Afghanistan’s mountain valleys to arouse the mujaheddin from their slumber — and hence train the future al-Qaida.

Likewise, in Iran there would have been no shah and his Savak terror, no Khomeini-led Islamic counter-revolution, no U.S. aid to enable Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks on Iranian boy soldiers in the 1980s.

Nor would there have been an American invasion of Arabia in 1991 to stop our erstwhile ally Saddam from looting the equally contemptible emir of Kuwait’s ill-gotten oil plunder — or, alas, the horrific 9/11 blow-back a decade later.

Most surely, the axis of evil — that is, the Washington-based Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon axis — would not have arisen, nor would it have foisted a near-$1 trillion warfare state budget on the 21st-century U.S.

The real point of that Great War, in terms of the annals of U.S. economic history, is that it enabled the already-rising U.S. economy to boom for the better part of 15 years after the onset of the war.

In the first stage, the U.S. became the granary and arsenal to the European allies. This triggered an eruption of domestic investment and production that transformed the nation into a massive global creditor and powerhouse exporter, virtually overnight.

U.S. farm exports quadrupled and farm income surged from $3 billion to $9 billion. Land prices soared, country banks proliferated and the same was true of industry. For example, steel production rose from 30 million tons annually to nearly 50 million tons.

Altogether, in six short years from 1914 to 1920, $40 billion of U.S. GDP turned into $92 billion — a sizzling 15 percent annual rate of gain.

The depression that could have been avoided

Needless to say, these figures reflected an inflationary, war-swollen economy. After all, the U.S. had loaned the Allies massive amounts of money — all to purchase grain, pork, wool, steel, munitions and ships from the U.S.

This transfer amounted to nearly 15 percent of GDP, or an equivalent of $2 trillion in today’s economy. It also represented a form of vendor finance that was destined to vanish at war’s end. As it happened, the U.S. did experience a brief but deep recession in 1920. But it was not a thoroughgoing end-of-war one that would “detox” the economy.

The day of reckoning was merely postponed. It finally arrived in 1933 when the depression hit with full force. The U.S. economy was cratering — and Germany embarked on its disastrous “recovery” experience under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.

These two events — along with so many of the above-listed offenses later on — could have been avoided if only the U.S. had shown the wisdom of staying out of World War I.

[Chaos]

^ that's a hell of a tale.

[Truth Teller]

(07-12-2014 09:23 AM)Orion Wrote:  

Unreasonable ?

There is a price to pay for starting a world war and losing it. Germany did not pay it, and so they thought "hell, why not try again".

First time Germany started to expand it's army beyond Versailles terms, France and allies should have intervened and prevented it.

Instead they thought "why not let nationalists take power in Germany, maybe something good will come out of it, and while we are at it, let them occupy a bunch of neighboring nations".

As soon as they read Mein Kampf, and seen that Hitler's goal is east, which means Russia and Poland, well, they had perfect solution for their worries

Germany did not start World War I by itself. The Russians and the Austro-Hungarians, neither of whom were punished as severely, played a huge part in starting the war.

The issue with saying that France and allies should've stood up to Germany is that you have to understand the horrors of World War I. The French lost about 1.4 million, and with civilian casualties, about 4.3-4.4% of their population was killed, not to mention another 4.3 million wounded. All this from a prewar population of roughly 40 million. The British fared a little better, with "only" roughly 3 million killed and wounded. Of course, with the Empire being the size it was, the percentage was significantly smaller.

After the carnage of the war, the Western governments were understandably hesitant to do anything that could lead to a war again. Hence appeasement and not doing anything when Hitler began to re-militarize the country.

Mein Kampf's idea of lebensraum was nothing new. Hitler was reviving Weltpolitik and ideas from the Second Reich.

[Orion]

(07-12-2014 02:58 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Germany did not start World War I by itself.

I never said they started it by themselves, i said they started it without being provoked in the first place by anybody, or their territory being threatened.

Quote:

The Russians and the Austro-Hungarians, neither of whom were punished as severely, played a huge part in starting the war.

What ? Austria-Hungary was completely dissolved, while Russia as well ceased to exist in 1917, when USSR was created. Because Soviets were unable to wage war further, they lost enormous territory in Brest-Litovsk agreement, roughly twice the size of German Empire.

Quote:

The issue with saying that France and allies should've stood up to Germany is that you have to understand the horrors of World War I. The French lost about 1.4 million, and with civilian casualties, about 4.3-4.4% of their population was killed, not to mention another 4.3 million wounded. All this from a prewar population of roughly 40 million. The British fared a little better, with "only" roughly 3 million killed and wounded. Of course, with the Empire being the size it was, the percentage was significantly smaller.

Dude, WW I repeated, with even worse consequences. So yeah, of course they should have stood up to Germany to prevent another war. They should have enforced Versailles treaty to the end, including navy, army, and preventing rearmament of Rhineland, and above all, denying Germany right to occupy Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Quote:

After the carnage of the war, the Western governments were understandably hesitant to do anything that could lead to a war again.

Yes, and thanks to their stellar efforts, we had another war, even worse then previous.

Quote:

Mein Kampf's idea of lebensraum was nothing new. Hitler was reviving Weltpolitik and ideas from the Second Reich.

Exactly, we had another lunatic doing completely the same thing over and over, and nobody prevented it. Thanks to liberal idiots in Paris, France was overrun like some puppet state.

[Comte De St. Germain]

What I found hilarious about WWII was that France got conquered in a week and the world has never let that go.

[Orion]

Yeah that's what happens when liberals are caught in the sofa while war is about to break out. Same happened to Spanish Republic during civil war, they were wiped out by previously inferior force. Liberals are simply champions in losing wars.

[Truth Teller]

(07-12-2014 04:05 PM)Orion Wrote:  

I never said they started it by themselves, i said they started it without being provoked in the first place by anybody, or their territory being threatened.

I misconstrued your words. They were technically provoked by the fact that Russian mobilization occurred a day before German mobilization, though the historiographic account varies on this.

Quote:

What ? Austria-Hungary was completely dissolved, while Russia as well ceased to exist in 1917, when USSR was created. Because Soviets were unable to wage war further, they lost enormous territory in Brest-Litovsk agreement, roughly twice the size of German Empire.

Austria-Hungary was on its way to being dissolved either way, war or not. The repressed national groups (Serbs, Germans, etc.) were, sooner or later, going to create a situation in which the Empire could no longer exist.

As for Brest-Litovsk, the Russians got back a lot of that territory, the indemnity was not nearly as severe as the German indemnity at Versailles, and by 1922, Brest-Litovsk had been largely abrogated.
\n

Quote:

Dude, WW I repeated, with even worse consequences. So yeah, of course they should have stood up to Germany to prevent another war. They should have enforced Versailles treaty to the end, including navy, army, and preventing rearmament of Rhineland, and above all, denying Germany right to occupy Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Enforcement of Versailles fell upon the League of Nations. The League of Nations lacked the United States. Once again, whether or not the US would've made a difference is up for debate, but I believe that it would have. Also, keep in mind that the Western governments truly believed that Hitler would stop with the Sudetenland. Appeasement was thought to be an effective strategy. The Western powers wanted to avoid war at any cost, and they believed that appeasing Hitler would do it.

Also, it's much easier said than done to enforce Versailles. With the Treaty of Rapallo, in 1922, the Germans were already beginning to flout the terms of Versailles.

Quote:

Yes, and thanks to their stellar efforts, we had another war, even worse then previous.

Yeah, I'm not even going to argue that. World War I caused political damage. World War II caused destruction akin to the Mongol hordes.

Quote:

Exactly, we had another lunatic doing completely the same thing over and over, and nobody prevented it. Thanks to liberal idiots in Paris, France was overrun like some puppet state.

Hold on, that's simply not true. Clemenceau himself said that the purpose of Versailles was to punish Germany. He did that with a 132 billion mark reparation, which Germany probably couldn't afford to pay. Germany wasn't involved in negotiations, which was almost unheard of at the time. The Germans surrendered assuming that Wilson's liberal principles would dominate at the Paris Peace Conference and were shocked when they didn't. They almost went back to war, actually. Indeed, the Ottoman Turks felt so screwed by Sevres that they went back to war.

France quickly capitulating had nothing to do with Versailles either. The French were so overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe that, despite their superiority in armor, they had absolutely no chance.