Let's talk about World War I
To start
The causes of the war
The effects of the war on the people
Was it truly a Great War
Who do you think should have won
Who is to blame for the war
The Treaty of Versailles: was it fair, harsh or just flat out wrong.
>>1119014
Shouldn't have cucked Japan out of the treaty of Versailles and Australia should've gotten rid of their white Australia policy.
The result would have left Japan in a less economic shit hole than it was, as it was suffering from overpopulation and had to rely on racist means to secure its economy which, predictably, failed.
i blame Wilhelm the II as based Bismarck knew his strategies well and factored that a fight with Britain would be suicide.
There were elements to the treaty that were necessary, but proved detrimental, and gave rise to Hitlers 3rd Reich.
It was a Great War. But it's sequel was far more horrendous.
>>1119033
Wilhelm was a fool to go against Bismarck.
A strong alliance with Russia was better than a dying empire like Austria.
Germany could have oversaw the death of the Austrian Empire and quickly absorbed it through cultural annex.
A strong alliance with Russia means no fear of being attacked from the back because France was still bitter from the Franco-Prussian War.
World War I would play out just like the 1871 war if Germany had the entire army march down on Paris in 1914 if a hypothetical war were to break out.
If Wilhelm didn't want to build a navy to foolishly challenge his cousin, England wouldn't have cared.
Wilhelm made so many foolish decisions that costed an Empire that was becoming number 1 in the world by doing nothing.
>>1119060
>wilhelm is personally responsible for every decision of the German government since his ascension.
He was right to sack Bismarck. The guy was trying to instigate the liberal elements of Germany into protests so he could have a pretext to ruthlessly clamp down on them.
>>1119060
Wilhelm was a fucking idiot.
Based Bismark fought for better.
>>1119086
But by sacking him, he wouldn't have made half of the dumb decisions he did.
He was a child trying to play God.
>>1119060
Are you forgetting Germany completely btfo Russia in WWI?
Russia at the time wasn't as important, and Russian revolution would have happened anyway.
The problem was with the system of alliances and the ambitions of Germany in dominating central Europe. Had Germany placated Britain and made moves not to alienate them, would have been better and saved Germany from the Western front war. The biggest stupidity on the part of Wilhelm was invading Belgium.
>>1119109
>Are you forgetting Germany completely btfo Russia in WWI?
No am I not but the war with Russia diverted most of the German Army away from the Western Front.
The failures of the Austrian Empire diverted many men away from the Western front.
The war could have ended quickly in 1914 with this factor and the failure of communications.
The Schlieffen Plan was retarded.
>>1119109
>The biggest stupidity on the part of Wilhelm was invading Belgium
How could you POSSIBLY pin that on Wilhelm?
He didn't draw up the Schlieffen plan. He's not the one who wanted to declare war in the first place.
Wilhelm was NOT an absolute Monarch. He had VERY LITTLE to do with the day to day running of the government. Yes, he had some say in broad policy initiatives, most notably the building of the Navy, but his real power was being able to sack and appoint chancellors.
Never in these threads does anyone mention Von Bulow or Holweg.
>>1119135
>Von Bulow or Holweg.
>>1119135
The wasn't anything wrong with the original Schlieffen plan per se. It was it's revision that made WWI into a clusterfuck.
>In his post-war writing, Delbrück held that the German General Staff had used the wrong war plan, rather than failed adequately to follow the right one. The Germans should have defended in the west and attacked in the east, following the plans drawn up by Moltke (the Elder) in the 1870s and 1880s.
This made perfect sense and would have been logical, you cannot fight both fronts on the offensive. And no invasion of Belgium means no participation of G.Britain. Indeed Wilhelm wasn't an absolutist monarch but in the end he approved the retarded attack on France and Belgium.
Was Belgium really that important? I mean, if Germany had attacked France only on their border would have Britain really stayed out of the war? In the case that France is about to be defeated, I can't imagine them just looking on and doing nothing.
>>1119174
Belgium wasn't important but it was for the Schlieffen plan.
Germany thought that a huge wide offensive would allow the army to easily take Paris and surround the French army at Frenche-Comte and Champagne where they're defending against the German advance there.
I also believe that Britain would have made another excuse to get into the war at that point because Britain saw the Kaiserliche Marine as a personal insult and threat to the Royal Navy. Britain, in both wars, has had a doctrine of acting like some great defender when they really never gave a fuck about Belgium or Poland.
>>1119014
>The causes of the war
german prewar foreign policy of escalation and immediate prewar willingness to actively pursue a war with russia, austrian meddling in the balkans with a view to war, and to a lesser degree russian willingness to get involved in the balkans
>The effects of the war on the people
they got shot, hurt, starved etc.
but at least they didn't get strategic-bombed all day erryday?
>Was it truly a Great War
yes
>Who do you think should have won
entente by an even bigger margin complete with an occupation to root those dolchstoss retards out
>Who is to blame for the war
see above
>The Treaty of Versailles: was it fair, harsh or just flat out wrong.
'fair' is a very loaded word but out of those three it is difficult to pick a different one, the reparations were payable, germany was left with a strong enough economy to pay them, lost land which was largely non german, and all things considered got away with chiefly causing the war much more leniently than, say, austria-hungary, which sort of ceased to exist
ultimately not enforcing the treaty enough turned to be a bigger problem for everyone in the long run than the treaty itself
>>1119314
>but at least they didn't get strategic-bombed all day erryday?
The soldiers got shelled everyday, if that counts.
>Who do you think should have won
Neither. Stalemate for both sides.
Central victory might just cause fascist or communist France. Austria-Hungary would collapse either way.
>>1119014
>The causes of the war
Serbs
>Who is to blame for the war
Serbs
>>1119328
well yes but soldiers got shelled in ww2 as well
at least in ww1 most of the populace was not exposed to the war in the same way they were in ww2
>>1119123
>No am I not but the war with Russia diverted most of the German Army away from the Western Front.
Germany still held the line reasonably well. Had it not been for the British naval blockade, Germany could have won the two-fronts war.
>The Schlieffen Plan was retarded.
Not necessarily. It was risky, but it could have succeeded - at least militarily. The problem were the political consequences since they gave Britain the opportunity to join in.
