[Truth Teller]

(07-12-2014 04:22 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

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

Six weeks, actually. Still pathetic, but understandable.

[Orion]

(07-12-2014 05:36 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

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.

Russian mobilization started because of Austria

Quote:

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.

??? Germans ruled that state. They were not oppressed, they were oppressors. Second largest national group, Hungarians not only got what they wanted with reformation of Austrian empire into Austria-Hungary, with clear division of territories, but were active proponents of war. Indeed, Kingdom of Serbia was invaded under command of Potiorek, who was Hungarian, and into Austrian service were also Czechs, Polaks, and Croatians, who perpetrated some of the war crimes in Serbia. In the aftermath of assassination, Muslims and Croats stared looting Serbian stores and homes in Sarajevo. So, technically, there was opposition to Austria-Hungary, but not a violent one, and not even politically significant one. Actually, if Serbia, Italy and Romania were not so thirsty for territories, Allies even considered letting Austria-Hungary survive.

Quote:

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.

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about, they "believed". You don't put lives of millions and vast fortune and cultural heritage to be wiped out on the pretext of "they believed". You enforce what must be enforced.

Quote:

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.

Yes, and in 1922, Germany should have been invaded to prevent rearmament.

Quote:

Hold on, that's simply not true. Clemenceau himself said that the purpose of Versailles was to punish Germany.

Among other things. What were they supposed to do, reward them ?

Quote:

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.

Prior to German invasion, France was on par with Germany, even considered superior. I'm not talking about what happened during fall of Paris, I'm talking about how they started losing the war in the first place.

[Truth Teller]

(07-12-2014 06:12 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Russian mobilization started because of Austria

Yes, which then provoked German mobilization. I blame all three countries for the war.

Quote:

??? Germans ruled that state. They were not oppressed, they were oppressors. Second largest national group, Hungarians not only got what they wanted with reformation of Austrian empire into Austria-Hungary, with clear division of territories, but were active proponents of war. Indeed, Kingdom of Serbia was invaded under command of Potiorek, who was Hungarian, and into Austrian service were also Czechs, Polaks, and Croatians, who perpetrated some of the war crimes in Serbia. In the aftermath of assassination, Muslims and Croats stared looting Serbian stores and homes in Sarajevo. So, technically, there was opposition to Austria-Hungary, but not a violent one, and not even politically significant one. Actually, if Serbia, Italy and Romania were not so thirsty for territories, Allies even considered letting Austria-Hungary survive.

Italy got screwed if you look at its original reasons for joining the war. The Austro-Hungarians didn't really have a functional army, so much so that the Russians, who were arguably the most incompetent, did very well against Austro-Hungarian forces.

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the Germans were largely the rulers of the Empire. I was using it as an example. I could just as easily said Croats, Serbs, and Maygars. The repressed national groups WERE going to tear these empires apart sooner than later. It was only a matter of time, and the war definitely exacerbated the process. I would also say that the reason that the Empire fell apart was the idea of self-determination that (through some vagary of fate) did end up in the Treaty of Versailles.

Quote:

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about, they "believed". You don't put lives of millions and vast fortune and cultural heritage to be wiped out on the pretext of "they believed". You enforce what must be enforced.

We're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. It was not immediately apparent that Hitler was going to start a war. Political will was non-existent. Like it or not, democracies are dependent on political will. If people aren't willing to do it, then it can't be done. We made that mistake with Vietnam, not understanding that conscription is based on political will.

Quote:

Yes, and in 1922, Germany should have been invaded to prevent rearmament.

Rapallo was a secret treaty. The French invaded the Ruhr in 1923 to secure reparations payments, which arguably made the situation worse for Germany.

Quote:

Among other things. What were they supposed to do, reward them ?

Clemenceau wanted to emasculate Germany to such an extent that it wasn't a threat for 50 years. The Germans surrendered on the belief that Wilson's liberal ideology would guide the Treaty and make it a fair and equitable peace. The opposite happened, and the Treaty of Versailles became a Carthaginian Peace. Hitler was able to manipulate this into the stab in the back myth, which he rode to a plurality in the Reichstag and the Chancellorship.

Quote:

Prior to German invasion, France was on par with Germany, even considered superior. I'm not talking about what happened during fall of Paris, I'm talking about how they started losing the war in the first place.

The French hadn't prepared for a modern war. They thought that World War I would be waged again, and their original defenses (the Maginot Line and trenches) showed it.

This is a good discussion, I hope other people are getting value out of it.

[Orion]

(07-12-2014 06:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Yes, which then provoked German mobilization. I blame all three countries for the war.

So point is, they were quite eager for war.

Quote:

Italy got screwed if you look at its original reasons for joining the war. The Austro-Hungarians didn't really have a functional army, so much so that the Russians, who were arguably the most incompetent, did very well against Austro-Hungarian forces.

1. Russia had largest army in Europe.
2. Russian offensive was sudden and surprising, that's why it caught Austrians off guard. Russian gains were quickly reversed once initial impact faded away. Apart from that, Austria had quite respectable and advanced force.

Quote:

Yes, I'm aware of the fact that the Germans were largely the rulers of the Empire. I was using it as an example. I could just as easily said Croats, Serbs, and Maygars. The repressed national groups WERE going to tear these empires apart sooner than later. It was only a matter of time, and the war definitely exacerbated the process. I would also say that the reason that the Empire fell apart was the idea of self-determination that (through some vagary of fate) did end up in the Treaty of Versailles.

"Self-determination" was won by other people's arms and as such quickly was lost as soon as hegemonic powers grew once again (this time Nazi Germany). The only ones who offered some resistance were Polish. Austrian Empire was multi-cultural, but vast majority of people (Germans, Hungarians, Croats, Ruthenians, Moravians, even Czechs and Slovaks to an extent) were loyal to it. The only example where people resisted Austrian mobilization were Slovaks, who had two instances of mutiny. First one was when they rejected shooing Serbian POWs. They were executed for disobeying orders together with them. Second time was when some of them were trying to defect to army of Kingdom of Montenegro, unsuccessfully since there was fire opened on them.

Quote:

We're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. It was not immediately apparent that Hitler was going to start a war. Political will was non-existent. Like it or not, democracies are dependent on political will. If people aren't willing to do it, then it can't be done. We made that mistake with Vietnam, not understanding that conscription is based on political will.

All I'm saying is they made huge mistake. There is no one else to be blamed but the west for it. It's quite clear to me why Hitler grew to power. I'm not debating Hitler here. I'm debating incompetence and charlatanism of west, so typical of it when other people's asses are in danger (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians). They even offered a sovereign nation on Hitler's plate. That's not what reasonable individual does to create peace. That's what idiot does to create chaos.

Quote:

Clemenceau wanted to emasculate Germany to such an extent that it wasn't a threat for 50 years.

That sounds reasonable to me. There is a price to be payed for losing a World War.

Quote:

The Germans surrendered on the belief that Wilson's liberal ideology would guide the Treaty and make it a fair and equitable peace.

Yeah sure, they must have had some toddlers in their government. Reality is, immediately after the war, ultra-conservatives and nationalists took power, and started arguing for another war even before Hitler came to prominence. They even had Hindenburg as a dictator. One of the reasons Hitler was so eagerly accepted, is that his rhetoric was only more direct and open than that of his predecessors. On the other side you only had leftists and liberals and that's about it. No middle ground.

Quote:

The French hadn't prepared for a modern war. They thought that World War I would be waged again, and their original defenses (the Maginot Line and trenches) showed it.

In WWI France was invaded through Belgium as well. So Maginot line should have been on Belgium border, not Alsace. Maginot Line was typical product of incompetence and corruption. Besides, every strategist with at least toddlers intelligence knew Germany cannot afford defensive and protracted war. They should have known Germany will attack, and look towards quick victory, and only way to win fast is using mobile units and aircraft.

[RexImperator]

The 100th anniversary of Austria declaring war is today.

[Libertas]

Yeah, today's the day. When you look at the Middle East and all that's going on there, World War I still has its long political echoes.

But the war also ended an era of optimism, a belief in progress and peace that reigned through the 19th century, which hadn't seen a general European conflict since the Napoleonic Wars. Arguably, this shattered illusion still lasts to this day.

Planning on writing a series of articles this month about World War I for my site. Started the first one earlier this morning.

[Quintus Curtius]

Here are the BBC's new "interactive guides" to the war:

http://www.bbc.com/ww1/25768752


And as the 100th anniversary approaches on August 14, here are some of the best BBC programmes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p021lfyx

[DChambers]

(07-12-2014 04:05 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(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.

The problem with Versailles is that it was both unreasonable and unenforceable short of going to war again.

Germany did not start the war. Indeed while they proved eager to get into the fray once conflict became inevitable, they went to great pains to keep the war limited, first to the Hapsburg Empire, Germany, Serbia, and Russia, and later just to continental powers.

The British nearly did not join the war, even after Belgian neutrality was violated. Several Cabinet ministers threatened to resign if war was declared. Alas, they did join the war, and it was the British Expeditionary Force that eventually proved, even more so than the U.S., to be the cause of Germany's demise.

Woodrow Wilson helped engineer the U.S. entry into the war. He was very pro British and saw the war as a way to bring America onto the world stage, save Britain, and practice his idealistic notions of diplomacy.

Now back to Versailles. It made Germany, who was not responsible for the war, impotent in central Europe, stripped of its empire and much of its territories, and subject to such harsh repatriations that their economy is even today an example of severe hyper-inflation. Hitler came to power because of Versailles. Germans desired to reclaim their former glory and to reverse the harsh parts of the treaty of Versailles. In fact, Versailles and a treaty is more of an exception than a rule. Most peace treaties of the 19th century were quite lenient towards the losing powers, little territory exchanged hands, and the thirst for revenge was not nearly so great as that of Germany's after Versailles. They lost Alsace, Lorraine, most of old Prussia, and all of their colonies. If such a thing happened to the U.S. today, we would be itching for a new war as well.

In addition, the powers in Europe in the 1930's were not armed and prepared for war like they were in 1914. They were broke, demoralized, and without the leaders that would emerge later in WW2. TO go to war simply required political will that did not exist in France and Britain until they were forced into it.

[Quintus Curtius]

What's really pathetic is that German youth of today have very little understanding of the First World War. Their educational system has whitewashed both world wars, so that they even feel guilty about the First World War. Even though they were not solely responsible for it.

I read somewhere that in the whole country, there is only one exhibit devoted to the First World War. Really sad. And this is a country who lost an unbelievable number of men in the conflict.

[Orion]

Why do they have to be solely responsible to feel guilty for invading foreign nations settled with foreign ethnic groups for the sake of acquiring vast territories and colonial posesions. It's not like they were guided by nationalist goals, since entire German demographic body, and beyond, was under either German or Austrian Empire.

(08-06-2014 09:05 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

Now back to Versailles. It made Germany, who was not responsible for the war, impotent in central Europe, stripped of its empire and much of its territories, and subject to such harsh repatriations that their economy is even today an example of severe hyper-inflation. Hitler came to power because of Versailles. Germans desired to reclaim their former glory and to reverse the harsh parts of the treaty of Versailles. In fact, Versailles and a treaty is more of an exception than a rule. Most peace treaties of the 19th century were quite lenient towards the losing powers, little territory exchanged hands, and the thirst for revenge was not nearly so great as that of Germany's after Versailles. They lost Alsace, Lorraine, most of old Prussia, and all of their colonies. If such a thing happened to the U.S. today, we would be itching for a new war as well.

In addition, the powers in Europe in the 1930's were not armed and prepared for war like they were in 1914. They were broke, demoralized, and without the leaders that would emerge later in WW2. TO go to war simply required political will that did not exist in France and Britain until they were forced into it.

No, Hitler came to power because Versailles was not enforced. It's simply ignorance and lack of proper information to claim that Hitler started nationalist trend in Germany, or that people started following extreme ideas thanks to poverty. Ultra-nationalist ideas were present immediately after the war, starting from 1918 and onwards. There were politicians in Germany, prominent ones, that were arguing for another war and for invasion of Poland even 20 years before Poland was actually invaded.


Ultimately, the truth is - Germany had no goddamn business outside it's borders. Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria. Not a single historical territory was missing. Their economy was flourishing, they acquired colonies in Africa that were simply handed to them. They had growing manpower, they even hard a large fleet.

Yet, German imperial masterminds wanted even beyond that. They wanted territories all the way to steppes, they wanted more colonies, they wanted foreign nations under their boot, they wanted more territories. Now please, cry me a river all the way to Versailles.

[RexImperator]

[Quintus Curtius]

(08-06-2014 01:44 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Why do they have to be solely responsible to feel guilty for invading foreign nations settled with foreign ethnic groups for the sake of acquiring vast territories and colonial posesions. It's not like they were guided by nationalist goals, since entire German demographic body, and beyond, was under either German or Austrian Empire.

(08-06-2014 09:05 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

Now back to Versailles. It made Germany, who was not responsible for the war, impotent in central Europe, stripped of its empire and much of its territories, and subject to such harsh repatriations that their economy is even today an example of severe hyper-inflation. Hitler came to power because of Versailles. Germans desired to reclaim their former glory and to reverse the harsh parts of the treaty of Versailles. In fact, Versailles and a treaty is more of an exception than a rule. Most peace treaties of the 19th century were quite lenient towards the losing powers, little territory exchanged hands, and the thirst for revenge was not nearly so great as that of Germany's after Versailles. They lost Alsace, Lorraine, most of old Prussia, and all of their colonies. If such a thing happened to the U.S. today, we would be itching for a new war as well.

In addition, the powers in Europe in the 1930's were not armed and prepared for war like they were in 1914. They were broke, demoralized, and without the leaders that would emerge later in WW2. TO go to war simply required political will that did not exist in France and Britain until they were forced into it.

No, Hitler came to power because Versailles was not enforced. It's simply ignorance and lack of proper information to claim that Hitler started nationalist trend in Germany, or that people started following extreme ideas thanks to poverty. Ultra-nationalist ideas were present immediately after the war, starting from 1918 and onwards. There were politicians in Germany, prominent ones, that were arguing for another war and for invasion of Poland even 20 years before Poland was actually invaded.


Ultimately, the truth is - Germany had no goddamn business outside it's borders. Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria. Not a single historical territory was missing. Their economy was flourishing, they acquired colonies in Africa that were simply handed to them. They had growing manpower, they even hard a large fleet.

Yet, German imperial masterminds wanted even beyond that. They wanted territories all the way to steppes, they wanted more colonies, they wanted foreign nations under their boot, they wanted more territories. Now please, cry me a river all the way to Versailles.

You make some good points, Orion, but I'd have to question some of your interpretations.

It is certainly true that Germany shares a measure of blame for the start of the war. And it is also true that Germany had "no business" outside its borders.

But this is overlooking the fact that Germany was not the one who mobilized first. Russia was. Russia's mobilization, and calls for help from its French ally, were the two things that escalated a localized Balkan spat between Austria and Serbia into an international crisis.

Was Germany supposed to just sit there while Russia and France set their huge armies in motion? Remember Germany lacked natural geographic defenses. The world from Berlin's perspective looked very different from the perspective in London, Washington, Rome, etc. The German general staff was obsessed with encirclement. And rightly so.

Now, I do think that Germany did its share of aggressive actions, too. Once they saw what was coming, they just said "fuck it" and dived in with both feet. But the initial fuse was lit by Austria and Russia.

In my opinion, Austria and Russia were primary instigators, followed by Germany, France, and, lastly, England.

Some justice was done. Both the Austrian and Russian thrones did not survive the war.

[Orion]

(08-06-2014 07:30 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

But this is overlooking the fact that Germany was not the one who mobilized first. Russia was. Russia's mobilization, and calls for help from its French ally, were the two things that escalated a localized Balkan spat between Austria and Serbia into an international crisis.

Every war has a goal and motivation. Austrian motivation was, quite openly, to simply subdue Balkans. Serbian motivation was at first only defense, but after initial victories, they expanded - the war goal was now liberation of Bosnia as well. What was German motivation ? It certainly was not defense. Could it be national interest ? That's legitimate, but Germany also had interest to see Austria collapse, to annex German populated parts. Russia proclaimed defense of Serbia as it's casus belli, while Germany proclaimed defense of Austria. So, Russia was coming to aide of attacked one, while Germany was helping the attacker. That's where the key is. That's why there was Versailles. There is price to be paid for invading others and helping others invade, and then losing war.

That is of course, if we forget about previous German conquests.

Quote:

Was Germany supposed to just sit there while Russia and France set their huge armies in motion? Remember Germany lacked natural geographic defenses. The world from Berlin's perspective looked very different from the perspective in London, Washington, Rome, etc. The German general staff was obsessed with encirclement. And rightly so.

Germans needed a very good reason to follow Austrian Imperial adventures. Austrians didn't have a very good reputation. Starting from crushing 101 rebellion to subduing Italy, Galicia, Bosnia and so on. After annexation of Bosnia, the ball was in Austria's court. It was a drop that filled the glass. Since annexation of Bosnia was not enough to make greedy Austrians happy, but they needed to invade yet another nation, there is absolutely no justifiable reason to jump to their defense. The Devil had simply came to collect his due. They had it coming for centuries of oppression, intimidation and imperial policy.

Which is of course again, if we forget that Austria was nothing else but another German country, however, this time Hungarians got share too.

Quote:

But the initial fuse was lit by Austria and Russia.

The initial fuse was lit by yet another Austrian adventurous campaign, since they were stuck in early 18th century political doctrine. Austria had reached it's maximum territorial and political extent. The bubble was more than inflated. Yet they chosen to subdue more vast territories settled with foreign nation with what appeared to be very little strategic significance. Until of course, after Ottomans and Germans joined, it became clear that ambitions of central powers were much more sophisticated - They wanted to break out from continental blockade through sheer conquest.

The bubble had burst, however, little lesson did Germans learn. They will follow another Austrian grand project in 1939, with a strategic plan that was a copy of the one from 1914. Definition of insanity...

And lastly and most importantly, the behavior of German political elite in the immediate aftermath (stab in the back myth) reveals who was mastermind behind central powers ambitions. It showed that Germans were simply not going to settle with peace and their strategic position, and that Austria had little to do with it. It showed that German public saw WW I as nothing but a historical setback towards reaching final goal of expanding and conquering eastern richness and southern waters.

However, in the end, German apologists prevailed in history, because Germans are now on the side of winners, and winning in today's political turmoil is more important than truth. Not to mention how much Germans invested into washing themselves as much as they could. Victims of their crimes are now left nothing but humiliation, silencing and relativism, and there is more of that to come in any sphere of political life where a western nation might be a perpetrator of similar acts.

[BadgerHut]

Fuck Bolshevism.

[BadgerHut]

(06-28-2014 05:52 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I've just started reading Ernst Junger's war memoir "Storm of Steel".

It's every bit as impressive as I've been told. Highly recommended.

I read the first couple chapters before my plane landed and I moved onto other works...good stuff so far though.

[BadgerHut]

(06-29-2014 07:34 PM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

Wars between monarchies were typically pissing contests that would usually end with the winning side gaining some new territory but never the outright subjugation of the losing side.

Really good point. The end of WWI as a sort of moral stroke against the defeated parties was a break from previous modern Western history. Grant and Lincoln wanted a friendly peace in 1865. In 1871, Germany retreated from Paris after proclaiming its own empire in the Hall of Mirrors (the same place the Treaty of Versailles was imposed). Even in 1814, all they really did was fiddle with some boundary lines.

(06-29-2014 07:34 PM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

WWI would have ended on its own eventually, most likely with Germany taking over some of France and both sides would have gone on with their lives. The US is a democracy though and their entry was a game changer. They didnt merely stop the fighting. Their entry led to the dissolution of the German and Austrian monarchies. Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy and the way to do that was to overthrow the monarchs and replace them with democracies. US foreign policy since the birth of the progressive movement has been all out war and establishing new governments that resemble western democracies. If you look at every war the US has fought in since WWI, that has been the case. We go in and attempt to secure & establish a western-style democracy. Be it that we fought the monarchs, the fascists, the Communists or the Islamists now, our goal has been to build secular western democracies.

I dislike US foreign policy a lot. I am a big supporter of monarchy & see democracy as communism lite.

In retrospect, the Wilsonian boner for "democracy" turned out to be a silly parlor game - kind of like 21st-century America's obsession with developing representative governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Weimar Republic was permanently unstable and created the very seeds for the Nazis' rise to absolute power via a loose coalition government of a dispossessed people. Britain and France sold out democratic Czechoslovakia in 1938. Even Communism is ostensibly "democratic," and American leftists of the prewar era thought the USSR was a sparkling free republic.

[BadgerHut]

(07-09-2014 02:46 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

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.

One particular way to conceive that Versailles was disastrous is that it contained enough invective and hostility to wound German pride and provoke their steps towards revenge, but didn't contain enough or properly-directed measures (or plans for enforcement) to actually prevent Germany from re-arming and engaging in aggressive military action. In reality, Hitler's gamble proved correct - the "victorious" nations showed no will to oppose with military force, and so the treaty was effectively voided when nobody would raise arms to enforce its military provisions.

In short, it provided plenty for the British and French diplomats to backslap each other about at embassy parties, but didn't actually address its goal of restricting Germany's future.

(The Allies got smart in WWII and insisted on a collective occupation of the country, the vestiges of which still continue today. So the US and the Soviets both got something more important than coal or reparation money - strategic positioning. Meanwhile the US bankrolled a rebuilding of Europe that subtly reconstructed west Germany's ability to act as a bulwark against Communism.)

[DChambers]

(08-06-2014 01:44 PM)Orion Wrote:  

Why do they have to be solely responsible to feel guilty for invading foreign nations settled with foreign ethnic groups for the sake of acquiring vast territories and colonial posesions. It's not like they were guided by nationalist goals, since entire German demographic body, and beyond, was under either German or Austrian Empire.

(08-06-2014 09:05 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

Now back to Versailles. It made Germany, who was not responsible for the war, impotent in central Europe, stripped of its empire and much of its territories, and subject to such harsh repatriations that their economy is even today an example of severe hyper-inflation. Hitler came to power because of Versailles. Germans desired to reclaim their former glory and to reverse the harsh parts of the treaty of Versailles. In fact, Versailles and a treaty is more of an exception than a rule. Most peace treaties of the 19th century were quite lenient towards the losing powers, little territory exchanged hands, and the thirst for revenge was not nearly so great as that of Germany's after Versailles. They lost Alsace, Lorraine, most of old Prussia, and all of their colonies. If such a thing happened to the U.S. today, we would be itching for a new war as well.

In addition, the powers in Europe in the 1930's were not armed and prepared for war like they were in 1914. They were broke, demoralized, and without the leaders that would emerge later in WW2. TO go to war simply required political will that did not exist in France and Britain until they were forced into it.

No, Hitler came to power because Versailles was not enforced. It's simply ignorance and lack of proper information to claim that Hitler started nationalist trend in Germany, or that people started following extreme ideas thanks to poverty. Ultra-nationalist ideas were present immediately after the war, starting from 1918 and onwards. There were politicians in Germany, prominent ones, that were arguing for another war and for invasion of Poland even 20 years before Poland was actually invaded.


Ultimately, the truth is - Germany had no goddamn business outside it's borders. Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria. Not a single historical territory was missing. Their economy was flourishing, they acquired colonies in Africa that were simply handed to them. They had growing manpower, they even hard a large fleet.

Yet, German imperial masterminds wanted even beyond that. They wanted territories all the way to steppes, they wanted more colonies, they wanted foreign nations under their boot, they wanted more territories. Now please, cry me a river all the way to Versailles.

But why were these nationalist ideas present? Because Versailles imposed harsh terms on Germany. While there may have been others with nationalistic views, none had either the charisma or political power of Hitler and his Nazi party. Hitler came to power because of German revanchism stemming from Versailles, and from the promise of work and bread. You can go back and look at interviews with Germans from the period, this is what these firsthand sources say. Download the first Episode of BBC's World at War, it chronicles Hitler's rise to power, and has the interviews I mention.

Historical territories missing? A good portion of Prussia, the historical homeland of the dominant Germany nation.

There also were in fact several million ethnic Germans spread throughout Eastern Europe during and after WW1. Several hundred thousands died during agrranged famines under Soviet Russia in the 1930's,

://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_ukraine1.html

http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/westobservs.htm

http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/research/sc...inner.html

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/grhc/order...sler2.html


Perhaps though you mean during WW1. In which case I suppose you correct, no real reason to go to war. Then again, neither did Russia, except to protect its interests in the Balkans, or France, who simply wanted a chance to humiliate the Germans and erase the memory of the Franco-Prussian War, Or Britain, who wanted to destroy the Germans as an economic rival. Or perhaps Serbia, who's nationalists gunned down the liberal heir to the Austrian Empire who was going to give them the reforms they sought? Or Austria, who wanted to avenge the death of their Arch Duke.

Or for that matter the United States, who manipulated by Wilson went to war to protect the world from the vile Hun. Who never quite got the story of the Luistiana right, never heard that it was sent into a known war-zone despite warnings from the Germans that they would sink any ship that entered those waters, or that the cruise liner just happened to be carrying arms of war to Britain.

Sure, Germany's not faultless, but they were not the only, or even the main cause or the Great War.

And Hitler, that apostle of evil, did not appear in a vacuum. He arose in a Germany that was left broken from the wounds of war, that had suffered through numerous internal revolutions and the destructive Friekorps, an ineffective government in the form of the Weimer Republic, and was looking for a way out. Germany would not have been in a state where Hitler could have won power had it not been so desperate as a result of Versailles and the economic hardships that followed.

And despite all your claims that we should have enforce the Treaty, it is clear that it was impossible to enforce short of another war, of which no nation was willing to go to that extreme. Why, because they couldn't. They had neither the armaments of the money to wage an immediate war. Nor were the people of the West willing to fight another World War simply because Germany was becoming stirring, and in a Republic, that public will is what counts.

[Orion]

(08-07-2014 09:15 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

But why were these nationalist ideas present?

Because Germans had trouble realizing they have lost the war badly, and expected that war was going to be fair 1v1 business.

Quote:

Because Versailles imposed harsh terms on Germany.

Versailles imposed nothing on Germany.

Quote:

While there may have been others with nationalistic views, none had either the charisma or political power of Hitler and his Nazi party. Hitler came to power because of German revanchism stemming from Versailles, and from the promise of work and bread. You can go back and look at interviews with Germans from the period, this is what these firsthand sources say. Download the first Episode of BBC's World at War, it chronicles Hitler's rise to power, and has the interviews I mention.

Yes, Hitler won masses by telling them "No, we didn't really lose the war, we were actually winning it, but we were backstabbed by [and then comes long list of backstabbers, enemies, traitors, etc...]

Obviously, Hitler lied. They lost the war because they underestimated their enemy. It took another devastating defeat for them to realize that.

Quote:

Historical territories missing? A good portion of Prussia, the historical homeland of the dominant Germany nation.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no such thing as historical Prussia. Prussia started only as Brandenburg, everything else was conquered by force from neighboring nation.

This is original Prussia, before conquests:



Obviously, the only pretext could be ethnic population, not historical borders.

Quote:

There also were in fact several million ethnic Germans spread throughout Eastern Europe during and after WW1. Several hundred thousands died during agrranged famines under Soviet Russia in the 1930's,

Every single German was either under German or Austrian Empire. Germans who were in Russia, were those who settled Russia in accordance with Catherine, who willingly moved there to start business and to serve Russian Empire.

Quote:

Perhaps though you mean during WW1. In which case I suppose you correct, no real reason to go to war. Then again, neither did Russia, except to protect its interests in the Balkans

Yes, Russia was defending it's interests in the Balkans. Austria was attacking them.

Quote:

, or France, who simply wanted a chance to humiliate the Germans and erase the memory of the Franco-Prussian War,

Yes, another one of unprovoked German wars.

Quote:

Or perhaps Serbia, who's nationalists gunned down the liberal heir to the Austrian Empire who was going to give them the reforms they sought

He was liberal only in the fantasies of new German and Austrian press with task to wash their history. In reality, he came there to parade his newest territorial acquisition. Yes, another acquisition that was simply handed to central powers for free (like colonies in Africa), yet, they felt entitled to more.

Quote:

Sure, Germany's not faultless, but they were not the only, or even the main cause or the Great War.

We are not even debating there. We are debating punishment. They lost the war they were guilty of starting in the first place. Guess what winner does not want to do ? Fight another war that's right.

I mean, if you want to defend German position, that's legitimate, but be fair and square: Germans were entitled to conquest and expansion as much as British were. And i would say - yes they were. But now that they lost, you must be fair and say - well they had it coming. Saying that Versailles was mistake is simply not reasonable from that point of view. You simply cannot go around "well, they only fought for imperial interests and you now, for laughs, they are not that morally eligible as a genocidal Hitler". No brother, they were responsible too. You think by reading books that it's all good historical fun, but over there, it was a war that moved complete continent from it's foundations. Millions were slaughtered over night for a fistful of Austrian fun and amusement, Germans included too.

Truth its, they were certain they will win, until it was too late. And they liked the prize that was waiting for them at the end of tunnel, had they won it.

Quote:

And Hitler, that apostle of evil, did not appear in a vacuum. He arose in a Germany that was left broken from the wounds of war, that had suffered through numerous internal revolutions and the destructive Friekorps, an ineffective government in the form of the Weimer Republic, and was looking for a way out. Germany would not have been in a state where Hitler could have won power had it not been so desperate as a result of Versailles and the economic hardships that followed.

Hitler was principal proof that Versailles was necessary, i still don't understand how you turn it the other way around. Versailles was to prevent German rearmament. German rearmed. WW II broke out. You had one job.

Quote:

And despite all your claims that we should have enforce the Treaty, it is clear that it was impossible to enforce short of another war

No, Germany was already half occupied. Germany could not have started another war was it not for allies who simply chose to back down. Germany had no army, Germany was half-occupied, Germany had no fleet. Possibility for Germany to rearm and build submarine fleet was provided to them by Allies. Versailles was a peace of cake to enforce, particularly because Germany is a continental land-locked country with little access to open waterways.

Quote:

, of which no nation was willing to go to that extreme. Why, because they couldn't. They had neither the armaments of the money to wage an immediate war.

It's the other way round. Germany had no armaments or money to lead another war. Until Allies chose to let them do whatever they want.

[TigerMandingo]

Has anyone read Adam Hochschild's To End All Wars? Pretty interesting. His main argument is that the war was not inevitable, as is believed among mainstream historians. There was a large anti-war movement, primarily in the UK.

[DChambers]

Now. I am trying to have a reasonable debate over the topic, but you are starting to boarder on condescension, so I will make this my last post on the topic, as I have already presented my views. Brandenburg is not Prussia. The throne of Prussia was created by the merger of Brandenburg and the duchy of Prussia in 1701. By the time of the formation of the German Empire consisted of most of Northern Germany.

The Franco-Prussian War, which you said, "another one of unprovoked German wars," began when the French declared war on Germany.

You said, "Every single German was either under German or Austrian Empire. Germans who were in Russia, were those who settled Russia in accordance with Catherine, who willingly moved there to start business and to serve Russian Empire. "

The above is irrelevant, your original statement stated flatly that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria." I have already shown that to be false.

You said, "Yes, Russia was defending it's interests in the Balkans. Austria was attacking them."

Simply inaccurate, Austria wanted revenge against Serbia, had Russia stayed out of the conflict World War could have been avoided.

Finally, you said we are not debating the cause of the war but punishment, then you say in the same sentence, "They lost the war they were guilty of starting in the first place....." Well that is what we are debating!

Lets move on from the fault of the war then, and look a the so called peace.

The treaty left Germany nearly defenseless, prostrate in the center of Europe, its economy collapsing, the Communists moving into Poland, revolutions within the country itself, a weak ineffective country.

The Allied nations, by stripping Germany bare, set the stage for a Hitler. They sowed the seeds for a Second World War. Germans wanted security, they wanted jobs and bread, and they wanted revenge.

You said, "No, Germany was already half occupied. Germany could not have started another war was it not for allies who simply chose to back down. Germany had no army, Germany was half-occupied, Germany had no fleet. Possibility for Germany to rearm and build submarine fleet was provided to them by Allies. Versailles was a peace of cake to enforce, particularly because Germany is a continental land-locked country with little access to open waterways."

Yes and no. Germany was briefly occupied in 1923-1925 due to its failure to pay the large sums of reparations required of it. The reason Versailles was not enforced is as I have already said, the political will did not exist in the Allied nations to do so.

Thus one comes to the unmistakable conclusion that it might be better to provide lenient terms to the losing side in a war. Why? Because that nation, with most of its territories intact, its pride not stung so badly, its people fat off of bread and satisfied with jobs, probably won't go out and seek a war of revenge. This was in fact the norm for much of Europe's history. Would they rearm? Probably, but the incentive to fight a new war would not be there.

That's the lesson of Versailles. A harsh peace leads to war.

[Truth Teller]

The harsh terms of Versailles directly led to World War II. There's a reason that the peace it created is commonly known as a Carthaginian Peace.

[Truth Teller]

(08-06-2014 07:30 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

You make some good points, Orion, but I'd have to question some of your interpretations.

It is certainly true that Germany shares a measure of blame for the start of the war. And it is also true that Germany had "no business" outside its borders.

But this is overlooking the fact that Germany was not the one who mobilized first. Russia was. Russia's mobilization, and calls for help from its French ally, were the two things that escalated a localized Balkan spat between Austria and Serbia into an international crisis.

Was Germany supposed to just sit there while Russia and France set their huge armies in motion? Remember Germany lacked natural geographic defenses. The world from Berlin's perspective looked very different from the perspective in London, Washington, Rome, etc. The German general staff was obsessed with encirclement. And rightly so.

Now, I do think that Germany did its share of aggressive actions, too. Once they saw what was coming, they just said "fuck it" and dived in with both feet. But the initial fuse was lit by Austria and Russia.

In my opinion, Austria and Russia were primary instigators, followed by Germany, France, and, lastly, England.

Some justice was done. Both the Austrian and Russian thrones did not survive the war.

Quintius, check out The Origins of the World War by Sidney Fay. He reaches a lot of the conclusions that you reach.

The Austrians, Russians, and Germans start the war. They are the primary causal agents.

[Orion]

(08-07-2014 01:34 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

Brandenburg is not Prussia. The throne of Prussia was created by the merger of Brandenburg and the duchy of Prussia in 1701. By the time of the formation of the German Empire consisted of most of Northern Germany.

By the time of German Empire it consisted of territories it conquered in recent 2 centuries. They were not handed to them by god. They conquered Silesia (a Polish territory) from Austria, and then further Poland from 3 partitions of Poland. So no, let's not forget Brandenburg, because Prussia was not that old entity. In fact, it was the youngest of all German entities.

Quote:

You said, "Every single German was either under German or Austrian Empire. Germans who were in Russia, were those who settled Russia in accordance with Catherine, who willingly moved there to start business and to serve Russian Empire. "

Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory.

Quote:

The above is irrelevant, your original statement stated flatly that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria." I have already shown that to be false.

Yes thanks for showing me that many nations have small minorities within their territories.

Quote:

Simply inaccurate, Austria wanted revenge against Serbia, had Russia stayed out of the conflict World War could have been avoided.

Austria did not want revenge, Austria wanted to conquer. Revenge is not when you launch 500.000 people on a campaign to simply subdue a land and then offer it's territories to your allies.

Quote:

The treaty left Germany nearly defenseless

You no say, maybe they should have left them armed to teeth.

Quote:

The Allied nations, by stripping Germany bare, set the stage for a Hitler. They sowed the seeds for a Second World War. Germans wanted security, they wanted jobs and bread, and they wanted revenge.

You are right, they did set stage to Hitler, by withdrawing from Germany and withdrawing from Versailles.

Quote:

Thus one comes to the unmistakable conclusion that it might be better to provide lenient terms to the losing side in a war. Why? Because that nation, with most of its territories intact, its pride not stung so badly, its people fat off of bread and satisfied with jobs, probably won't go out and seek a war of revenge. This was in fact the norm for much of Europe's history. Would they rearm? Probably, but the incentive to fight a new war would not be there.

I think you simply have a problem with morality here. Let me tell you something again. When you start a war that kills gazillion of people, you simply don't receive lenient terms. You don't, period. It doesn't happen even in fairy tails. You get punishment. You get punished hard, severely. If you don't like it, you can start a rebellion and get crushed. If you don't like repaying reparations, ok, let's take a couple of territories. You like it now ? No ?

That's how it goes. You don't just end a war that evaporates cities, populations, orders, and then get a pat on the back.

Quote:

That's the lesson of Versailles. A harsh peace leads to war.

World War II simply proved it isn't true. Germans got stripped of more territories, they got their population expelled from entire Eastern Europe, they got Army shrinked to this day, they got their industry displaced around Europe. Did they start WW III ? No they did not. Because enough of German shit was simply enough.

(08-07-2014 01:37 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The harsh terms of Versailles directly led to World War II. There's a reason that the peace it created is commonly known as a Carthaginian Peace.

It's called peace that was never implemented. Which is obvious to anyone who realizes that Hitler copied WW I . Same goals, same strategy, same politics. As i said, creators of Versailles, you had one job, to prevent repeat of WW I. You don't let defeated side choose whether they will be "kind enough not to start another war". You enforce it.

[DChambers]

(08-07-2014 02:33 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 01:34 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

Brandenburg is not Prussia. The throne of Prussia was created by the merger of Brandenburg and the duchy of Prussia in 1701. By the time of the formation of the German Empire consisted of most of Northern Germany.

By the time of German Empire it consisted of territories it conquered in recent 2 centuries. They were not handed to them by god. They conquered Silesia (a Polish territory) from Austria, and then further Poland from 3 partitions of Poland. So no, let's not forget Brandenburg, because Prussia was not that old entity. In fact, it was the youngest of all German entities.

Quote:

You said, "Every single German was either under German or Austrian Empire. Germans who were in Russia, were those who settled Russia in accordance with Catherine, who willingly moved there to start business and to serve Russian Empire. "

Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory.

Quote:

The above is irrelevant, your original statement stated flatly that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria." I have already shown that to be false.

Yes thanks for showing me that many nations have small minorities within their territories.

Quote:

Simply inaccurate, Austria wanted revenge against Serbia, had Russia stayed out of the conflict World War could have been avoided.

Austria did not want revenge, Austria wanted to conquer. Revenge is not when you launch 500.000 people on a campaign to simply subdue a land and then offer it's territories to your allies.

Quote:

The treaty left Germany nearly defenseless

You no say, maybe they should have left them armed to teeth.

Quote:

The Allied nations, by stripping Germany bare, set the stage for a Hitler. They sowed the seeds for a Second World War. Germans wanted security, they wanted jobs and bread, and they wanted revenge.

You are right, they did set stage to Hitler, by withdrawing from Germany and withdrawing from Versailles.

Quote:

Thus one comes to the unmistakable conclusion that it might be better to provide lenient terms to the losing side in a war. Why? Because that nation, with most of its territories intact, its pride not stung so badly, its people fat off of bread and satisfied with jobs, probably won't go out and seek a war of revenge. This was in fact the norm for much of Europe's history. Would they rearm? Probably, but the incentive to fight a new war would not be there.

I think you simply have a problem with morality here. Let me tell you something again. When you start a war that kills gazillion of people, you simply don't receive lenient terms. You don't, period. It doesn't happen even in fairy tails. You get punishment. You get punished hard, severely. If you don't like it, you can start a rebellion and get crushed. If you don't like repaying reparations, ok, let's take a couple of territories. You like it now ? No ?

That's how it goes. You don't just end a war that evaporates cities, populations, orders, and then get a pat on the back.

Quote:

That's the lesson of Versailles. A harsh peace leads to war.

World War II simply proved it isn't true. Germans got stripped of more territories, they got their population expelled from entire Eastern Europe, they got Army shrinked to this day, they got their industry displaced around Europe. Did they start WW III ? No they did not. Because enough of German shit was simply enough.

(08-07-2014 01:37 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The harsh terms of Versailles directly led to World War II. There's a reason that the peace it created is commonly known as a Carthaginian Peace.

It's called peace that was never implemented. Which is obvious to anyone who realizes that Hitler copied WW I . Same goals, same strategy, same politics. As i said, creators of Versailles, you had one job, to prevent repeat of WW I. You don't let defeated side choose whether they will be "kind enough not to start another war". You enforce it.

Okay, real last post.

You said, "Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory. "

Once more, irrelevant. Your original statement simply stated that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria."

Second, I find it incredibly difficult to see how you could come to the conclusion that Hitler went to war in 1939 for the same reasons as the Germans went to war in 1914. The underlying motives were entirely different. The German's in 1914 cobbled together a list of war aims after the war commenced. These aims were mainly concerned with German dominance in regards to trade, and the creation of new buffer states along the eastern frontier.

In World War 2 Hitler desired to create a new world order based around Fascism and the superiority of the Aryan/Anglo/Teutonic races.

You say, "I think you simply have a problem with morality here. Let me tell you something again. When you start a war that kills gazillion of people, you simply don't receive lenient terms. You don't, period. It doesn't happen even in fairy tails. You get punishment. You get punished hard, severely. If you don't like it, you can start a rebellion and get crushed. If you don't like repaying reparations, ok, let's take a couple of territories. You like it now ? No ? "

Herein lies the problem. A good study of the War shows that Germany is not responsible for WW1, no more than the other powers, less than some. Thus the draconian terms that were placed upon them were not moral. I have no problem with the terms given in WW2, but the situation at the end of the two wars were radically different. In the 1st, you had a Germany that was beaten, but not broken. In the 2nd you had a Germany who was fully occupied by the Allies and the Soviets, with a decimated armed forces.

What did the hard peace of WW2 bring us though? A Cold War, where the Americans and Soviets watched each other from amongst the ruins of Europe. Where the threat of Nuclear annihilation hung over the world. A foreign policy of interventionism that has made the United States a pariah among the nations of the world.

And look at Europe today. Germany is the strongest nation on the continent. In spite of WW2.

No, your way of peace wrong, not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The strain of occupation is immense, politically and financially. Neither Britain, France, the U.S., or Russia were willing to expend that kind of blood and treasure in 1918. Even knowing this, they craft a peace in Versailles that is bound to be broken. That will set the stage for a new war. That is the part that I don't think you are getting.

Even if the Allies were willing to enforce Versailles, they would still need to go to war to do so. If however a peace was given that was not so hard for Germany to swallow, then war is unlikely to occur. So which is preferable, a greedy peace that you will likely have to spend the next few decades enforcing after which you will still probably have to go to war, or a peace that leaves the defeated adversary their pride and you can get on with the work of nations.

Another factor to consider. A disarmed Germany would likely quickly have been swallowed up by the Soviets as they began their expansion in the 1940's. The 2nd world war might well have been fought on the Fields of France between the Allies and the Red Menace.


We are in fact seeing a result of the peace of WW2 today. A comparatively disarmed Germany and Europe can do little to effectively halt Russia. Russia would never be so bold if a well armed Europe stood ready to meet them. Instead you have a Europe that has been guarded for the past 60 years by the military power of the United States. The once mighty Empires of the old world can barley field a proper combat division, let alone field armies. With the influence of the United States shrinking, who knows what will happen in Europe. Because they were occupied and guarded, and not allowed to rearm.