why are the Germans considered the bad guys of ww1?
they didn't start the war and the entente empires weren't any better than the germans
>>411071
Because they disregarded Belgium's neutrality and because they lost.
because it was through their direct actions and aggressive behavior that the war had escalated into a massive conflict
actions such as encouraging austria to proceed with a much desired military action in the balkans
such as invading neutral belgium and committing atrocities there
such as waging a war of aggression
such as attacking france
such as setting their sights on a confrontation with russia already a few years prior and doing the above and below to make it happen
such as submitting russia to an extremely harsh peace treaty
such as isolating france diplomatically and in turn literally causing their own "need" to strike both west and east
>>411071
I'm pretty sure only butthurt Frenchies consider them the bad guys these days.
>>411091
Yeah. They should at least won or leave Belgium alone. Doing both was shit move on their part.
History written by the victors etc. etc.
>>411117
>History written by the victors etc. etc.
Saying that in a thread about WW1, a war where historiography has for decades - and popular history even now really - been literally infested to the core by German propaganda, should be punishable by slapping. See: Clio Deceived by Herwig.
>>411103
>because it was through their direct actions and aggressive behavior that the war had escalated into a massive conflict
Literally every single country involved were responsible for aggressive behaviour though. Expect Portugal I guess.
>>411104
If we assume "bad guys" to mean "one of the parties at whose feet the largest responsibility for the war lies", then you would be wrong, as that is what post 1960 or thereabouts historical research will tell you. The date not being an accident, but rather coinciding with the opening of German archives and the absolute revelation it has been.
>>411103
>Attacking France
Are you saying France wouldnt have attacked Germany if Germany had attacked Russia to stop it from attacking its ally?
>>411144
i sure would be interested about the responsibility of belgium for getting invaded by germany, or of france which had done virtually all it could to prevent a war including pulling troops away from the border or telling its ally russia not to do anything that might provoke germany
>>411131
Maybe it's because I live in the UK but I don't agree at all. Just last year a government minister called WWI a "war for liberty and freedom" and that kind of bullshit.
>>411160
we will never know but what we do know is that during the buildup to the war france absolutely did not want war, going as far as actually telling their allies the russians not to antagonize germany in any way
>>411165
https://web.viu.ca/davies/H482.WWI/Mayer.domestic.causes.WWI.1967.htm
>>411166
Well the wording is perhaps not entirely fortunate but in the case of, say, Belgium and France, it certainly has an element of truth to it, as in freedom from German occupation perhaps.
>>411181
From what ive heard they wanted war so bad they allied with Russia in hopes of getting lost clay from Germany because they knew Germany wanted war with Russia.
>>411181
>implying the french weren't buttmad revanchists
>implying they didn't want to fight Germany
>>411185
why are you linking an article that does not even mention the words 'belgium' or 'belgian', and in those three paragraphs which include the word 'france', it outright mentions the 'left's strident antimilitarism', the left being in power in france at the time
>>411186
Sure, but the French occupied parts of Germany after the war as well as everything else wrong with the Versailles Treaty. Besides, Germany wasn't a dictatorship until 1916. It wasn't a healthy democracy, but neither was anyone else.
>declare war on the entire world
>fucking jooz
>>411192
>>411190
but they weren't revanchists and they didn't want war
they literally weren't and didn't, the socialist left that was in power at the time was staunchly anti-war, non-revanchist and absolutely did not want war - just look at their actions in the time leading up to the war
they hamstrung their own military by refusing mobilization, they imposed severe civilian oversight of the military, in the days before the war they pulled their troops further away from the border so as not to antagonize germany, they straight up told their allies in russia not to do anything that might lead to a war with germany and so on
like, any decent ww1 book will tell you that, say something from herwig maybe or maybe tuchmans guns of august has something about it or heck even the relevant wikipedia pages mention it, look up poincare or the july crisis
>>411244
But they mobilised over 2 million men during the summer.
Blame the eternal Anglo as always
>>411215
The occupation of the Ruhr came as a result of Germans failing to pay the reparations. Reparations which - contrary to "popular history" - were in no way crippling (see: Myths of Reparations by Sally Marks). They were entirely payable by Germany. In fact, they had to be so as to be of any use to the allies, chiefly France and Belgium who had had significant parts of their territory trampled and looted by the Germans. The allies did not even want indemnities from Germany, but war reparations.
hey weren't marxist/communists known for being full ardent atheists?
>>411254
well of course they have - after the germans have delivered their ultimatum, and having shot down joffre asking for mobilization earlier
>>411315
But if they didn't want war why didn't they accept the ultimatum?
>>411325
why should anyone, especially a sovereign nation, comply with the outrageous demands of a bully?
>>411071
Spikes on hats, hats with spikes, you do the math
>>411259
kaiser willy did nothing wrong
>>411571
>>411586
Because they struck first. That's literally it. Germany and France had exactly as much murderous intent against one another to the point where you can't point at Germany and call it the unfettered warmonger lusting to wage war against the innocent French. If France had attacked first, THEY would be seem as the instigators of the war.
Whatever atrocities Germany committed at Belgium aren't really THAT relevant when it comes to deciding the bad guy. It's a matter of human rights, not of casus belli. The US imprisoned asian-americans in internment camps during WWII post-pearl harborand you don't see anyone [credible] calling them the bad guys of the Pacific War.
>>411103
>isolating France diplomatically
During Bismarck's day, maybe. Germany was the one diplomatically isolated when the war started, literally no one to rely on but Austria and perhaps freaking Somalia.
>>411623
>Germany and France had exactly as much murderous intent against one another ... If France had attacked first, THEY would be seem as the instigators of the war.
That is a pretty huge IF considering France simply did not want war. See: Poincaré's actions in the fateful summer, French domestic policy in the months and years leading up to it, French foreign policy during the crisis, also rest of this thread.
Also...
>During Bismarck's day, maybe. Germany was the one diplomatically isolated when the war started, literally no one to rely on but Austria and perhaps freaking Somalia.
... yes perhaps if you don't want your foreign policty to backfire, then don't cut your ties with, I don't know, with Russia maybe. And perhaps don't put France into a position where it feels it needs to jump in at the slightest possibility of securing an ally against the Germans - who had attacked France a short time ago. German political situation was pretty much entirely their own doing.
>>411571
>>411677
>perhaps if you don't want your foreign policty to backfire, then don't cut your ties with, I don't know, with Russia maybe. And perhaps don't put France into a position where it feels it needs to jump in at the slightest possibility of securing an ally against the Germans - who had attacked France a short time ago. German political situation was pretty much entirely their own doing.
I'm not arguing that that's not the case. I'm just arguing that that's how it was. France wasn't politically isolated, Germany was, if by her own faults, or otherwise.
It's a funny thing how the entire setup for the war was based on the idea of not having to fight a two-front war, and yet it all would've gone much better for Germany had her just settled down and waited for France to come to them while dealing with Russia in the east.
>>411695
>>412039
thank the BBC for this gem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCEUZ4rFiac
this one is also pretty good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmMT4sETu8
>go around shiting on other peoples carpet for years
>retarded cousin wants to bully some redneck faggots
>help him
>declare war on everybody
>they fight back
>can't win
>ohshit.kaiser
>italy pls halp
>fucking jooz, we dindu noffin
>>411571
He a good boy he dindu nuffins
>>412067
Poor Germans. The Anglo pain train never ends.
>>412082
Kaiser Wilhelm II is the best meme
>>412082
just need mo money fo dem overseas colonies
>>412330
need mo money fo dem naval armament programs
>>412082
WE WUZ KAISERS N SHIT
>>411165
>i sure would be interested about the responsibility of belgium for getting invaded by germany
Refusing German troops to pass through. A war is fought to be won and if you're in a position like Belgium you can't simply declare yourself "neutral", thinking you're Switzerland when you lack the natural defences of Switzerland. You have to pick sides, it has been that way for centuries before and nobody cared.
>>411181
>we will never know
We can know based on the fact that France refused to declare themselves neutral. Had they had no ambition to attack Germany from the back they could have done so. They didn't and thus Germany was right to assume that France would become their enemy.
>>411071
>rape of Belgium
"We dindu nuffin!"
>>411259
Now THIS is memeing
This is bait, right?
Germans were just as bad in WW1 as in WW2.
- They started the war (because no, a war between Austria and Serbia would not have been a world war if Germany hadn't taken the opportunity to chimp out and attack France)
- They invaded neutral Belgium
- They massacred civilians by the thousands, wiping out whole towns
- They burned down and destroyed countless historical artefacts and buildings that fell into their hands just because
- They introduced the use of chemical weapons and flamethrowers
The Nazis didn't come out of nowhere. Germans have been ISIS tier delusional racial supremacist psychopathic assholes from the moment Germany was founded.
>>411117
>History written by the victors etc. etc.
Literally a fucking meme. History didn't forget the British concentration camps during the boer war, Yue Fei who was executed by his own country for resisting the Jin, the death of the Cherokee in the Trail of Tears, the Napoleonic code and the reforms Napoleon presided over in the sciences, or his legacy as a general; it still bemoans the burning of Persepolis by a victorious Alexander (he did too), the loss of Islamic literature in the burning of baghdad by the victorious mongols, or tiananmen. The Southerners still argue that they were right the whole time in the civil war, the Nationalists of China the same thing. And it won't stop Americans from arguing they won Vietnam, the Japanese from arguing that it was all an American Conspiracy to drag them into war, or that the mongols were great people.
Victors TRY to write history. Most of the time they're not very fucking successful, at least not in the long term.
>>412733
>You have to pick sides, it has been that way for centuries before and nobody cared.
> A war is fought to be won and if you're in a position like Belgium you can't simply declare yourself "neutral"
Are you seriously arguing that Belgium was acting aggressively by failing to pick a side in a war? That somehow they are responsible for escalating a world war for refusing to voluntarily take part in it?
>>414272
>Germans have been ISIS tier delusional racial supremacist psychopathic assholes from the moment Germany was founded.
>>412733
>staying neutral in a war (or wanting to) means you are RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR
ha haa
this is /his/, ladies and gentlemen
>>412745
>We can know
but we cannot
there is only so far you can go to accomodate someone chimping out like germany
and above all no one has any obligation to simply suffer a spoiled kid chimp out like that
france had done a lot in the regard of avoiding war, including actively hindering their military deployment and trying to convince its ally not to go to war
all of which clearly shows that they did not want war, let alone strike the first blow at the time
>>414374
I'm not really sure what it matters how France FELT about the war when the fact remains it was allied with Russia who was in fact attacking Germanys ally. This was pretty much the only reason Germany attacked France in the first place "B-BU-BUT WE DONT KNOW IF FRANCE WOULD HAVE ACTED ON HIS ALLIANCES!!!"
Why would anyone think France wouldnt act on his promises? Were French known for being cowards and backstabbers?
>>414415
France had absolutely no obligation to aid Russia even if Russia was attack, let alone if Russia attacked someone else, you dumb fuck.
There was no "system of alliances" pushing countries into war, it was literally just Germany chimping out and attacking everyone else over some retarded excuse in the Balkans that didn't have jack shit to do with France.
>>414415
>I'm not really sure what it matters how France FELT about the war when the fact remains it was allied with Russia who was in fact attacking Germanys ally.
Russia didn't attack shit until Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and Russia was pretty explicit that they were mobilizing to defend Serbia (which, mind you, had agreed on the vast majority of Austria-Hungary's ridiculous ultimatum. Austria-Hungary ignored it and declared war anyway) against Austria-Hungary. Russia wasn't even done mobilizing by the time Germany declared war ON Russia.
>>414374
>this level of delusion
we literally DO know, France had no way out of the war, should I remind you who mobilized first?
>>414415
you seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that it was russia who had declared war in the east, but it was in fact germany
also of course it matters how france felt, seeing as that is at the core of this discussion - whether france wanted to attack germany or not, which it did not
would it have? maybe, but that is just speculation - what is not speculation, however, is that it did not want war, did a lot not to escalate the situation, hindered itself in an attempt not to antagonize germany etc.
>>414436
>France had no way out of the war
well, of course they had no way out of the war - a war they did not want - seeing as germany actively imposed war on them
>>414415
Do you even know the timeline of the war?
Okay so the Archdick got assassinated by a Serbian semi-terrorist organization, and it seems (to much of the international community as well) that Serbia is at fault. So on July 23rd, Austria-Hungary issues a set of demands on Serbia. The terms of this ultimatum include (but are not limited to):
>Don't say anything mean against Austria-Hungary.
>Remove anything that might be mean about Austria-Hungary from the public domain
>Remove all the people we want from the Serbian Government
>Explain why any Serbian government official may have said something mean about Austria-Hungary
>Take everybody we tell you is involved to trial for killing the Archduke. Also Austro-hungarian law enforcement is going to preside over the investigation.
You can't make this shit up, see http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)
The funny thing is that Serbia agreed to literally every single one of these terms that were probably deliberately intended to trample on its national sovereignty except the part where austro-hungarian police preside over a Serbian court. This is kind of the part where responsibility shifts over from Serbia for letting some guy shoot the archduke to Austria-Hungary, because they decide that this isn't nearly enough and declare war anyway. It's at THIS point where Russia starts mobilizing. Not declaring war, just mobilizing, because the Russians know their infrastructure is shit and there's no way they'll be ready before the Germans are.
It's this point that the Germans start wading in arms swinging and declares war on Russia (who hasn't declared war yet and made clear that it was only mobilizing against austria-hungary) three days after Austria-Hungary decided to start the whole thing by declaring war on a nation that had just accepted what in most wars would follow a statement of surrender.
>>414439
I'm pretty sure just allying with Russia had already escalated them to be part of the war with Russia. France might not have wanted war, but they didnt give any impression they wouldnt join it. I guess France had a bit too much autism and couldnt properly convey to Germany that France was in fact neutral and didnt want war.
>>414473
i would also like to point out that the russians told serbia to accept the ultimatum (which they had done barring one point like you said)
except it would have been for naught, as the austrians own design was for it to be rejected, in fact very much so like the ultimatums issued by germany at the time
>>414473
So moving on, Germany is worried about a two-front war (maybe if the Kaiser hadn't been a complete fuckup and not antagonized the Russians this was not something to worry about) and look at France.
>>414481
Oh you missed the best part, the part where Germany asked that, in order to prove their neutrality, France hand over their fortresses at Verdun and Toul AS A SHOW OF NEUTRALITY. You know, France's most powerful fortresses.
>http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1918/03/17/page/2/article/hollweg-admits-1914-demand-for-toul-and-verdun
Which is real autistic of the French of course, why go to war when you could give up the cornerstone of your border defense?
>>414481
they had allied with russia for one particular reason only - german diplomacy left them isolated and without an ally in the years prior
thus, when germany itself let its treaty with russia drop and did not want to extend it
a grateful france jumped on the chance of a potential ally against germany - a country which had invaded them a few years before
furthermore, not allowing your army an early mobilization and pulling troops away from the border were clear enough signs of french intentions - that is, not wanting to go to war
the problem is, germans did want to go to war
and yes someone will blurt out that 'hurr durr france should have just accepted the german ultimatum'. except, as stated earlier in this thread, no one, especially not a sovereign nation, has any obligation to bow down to a spoiled bully making unreasonable demands, which 'disarm, give us your border forts, and we might not attack you... or else we will attack you' most certainly is
>>414491
So, after the perfectly reasonable German request that the French hand over their most important border fortresses was "autistically" rebuffed, the Germans figure they should go to war with them too. Except that Belgium is in the way, so Germany's request is literally "let us through or we war you." The pretext, all diplomatic and shit, is that "France might invade you so let us through or we war you," something which the Belgiums refused. The British had basically been asking the Belgians not to do anything as long as there was no outright declaration of war, but of course Germany wades in arms swinging and declares war on Belgium too.
>>414509
as >>414503 points out, France attacking Germany was a certainty as much as Germany attacking Russia if Russia attacked Austro-Hungary. Neither Germany or France could tolerate a situation where one of their allies gets double teamed by the other. If Germany attacked and defeated Russia, France would be alone in europe. Why assure neutrality when you were not in fact neutral? Because France wasnt neutral.
>>414519
Austria-Hungary and Germany were still 100% responsible for escalating the situation such that Russia and then France had any obligation or desire to participate. Serbia had agreed to let Austria-Hungary basically dictate the composition of its government and Austria-Hungary had declared war anyway. Russia had assured Germany that it was there to stop Austria-Hungary to stop a war it had (unreasonably) started, and Germany decided to declare war anyway, and then levy the most unreasonable demands upon France (which, as you said in >>414415, acted perfectly reasonably given that they were in a situation the Germans started, and then pulled into a war the Germans declared first). That's why the Germans are considered the bad guys of WWI, because they were responsible for the deliberate escalation of the war first from a regional affair to a regional war into a world war.
>>414530
Sadly the worlds not that black and white. All the powers in europe were in an arms race. Germany wanted a war with Russia immideatly because they were afraid the big country would over take them in technology and industry in 10 years or so. If Germany allowed the situation to continue itd be the one getting false flagged and double ganged by Russia and France in 10 years.
>>414543
>Sadly the worlds not that black and white.
No, it is when you declare war on someone after their completely peaceful capitulation and demand territory off neutral nations for their neutrality.
>If Germany allowed the situation to continue itd be the one getting false flagged and double ganged by Russia and France in 10 years.
And then in ten years it would be Russia and France that were at fault if they did that. But in this case, given that Germany and Austria-Hungary deliberately avoided every step in which the Serbian government and Russian tried to accommodate them, they are 100% at fault, black and white. You can't have expected France, Serbia or Belgium to have reasonably accepted any of those propositions, and none of those nations posed any kind of ridiculous demand in return.
>>414543
>in ten years that guy would have grown up and murdered me, so I shot him now in self-defense!
>The world's not black and white man, in ten years he would have totally false flagged me and shot me, that's why I had to shoot him, ten years early, in self-defense.
>Look, he and his friend shot back at me after I shot them first. Now we're all at fault.
>>414556
Are you trying to tell me Russia wasnt expanding into Europe?
>>414564
Yes, I fucking am. Allying with Serbia or the Slavs is not "Russian expansion into Europe" anymore than a German alliance with Austria-Hungary is "German expansion into Austria-Hungary". Russia had enough domestic problems without trying to annex anybody remotely in Europe.
>>414568
Russias alliance with Serbia was literally just about keeping an ally in the balkans so they can expand there later. Serbia was basically the only country there willing to ally with them so they were desperate to keep them around.
>>414578
>A neighbor a few doors down is making friends with my neighbors
>Well now he must be fucking getting ready to buy his property and then use it to kill me in ten fucking years, better shotgun him now before he tries anything later.
>Also let's demand that his other friend give me his property and guns to prove he's not going to shoot me.
Even if that were remotely true it's still the most bullshit reason ever for deliberately perpetuating a war the other guy had no previous intention of pursuing.
>>414578
Also if you're planning to deny Russia a chance to expand into Serbia, why would you do so by declaring war on Serbia after he literally agreed to let you rearrange his government to your liking at will?
>>411071
Do you have proofs of your revisionist claims?
>>414556
This is the exact reason Britain formed an entente with France and Russia. They feared Germany would develop the industrial capability to form a navy which might defeat theirs and cut off British trade, which would destroy them.
>>414610
>Well now my neighbors are making friends and writing contracts with each other because they're worried about me
>better fucking shoot them
The Entente didn't start the war, nor did they escalate it. Germany did.
>>414584
This only sounds stupid because you're thinking in the context of a modern society with a strong police force.
If you're in antebellum kansas, and some southerners come to town and start holding meetings with a few locals known to be pro-slavery, I wouldn't see a problem with a gang disarming the sympathizers and raiding the southerners' homes or town.
Read "northerners" and "anti" if your sympathies are that way.
if mental gymnastics exercised and strengthened the brain as much as physical gymnastics build up the body, the prussiaboos itt would rival einstein himself
>>414632
>This only sounds stupid because you're thinking in the context of a modern society with a strong police force.
International law (which Belgium referred to when it rejected Germany's "let us through or we war you" ultimatum) was very much in place by the 20th century and had been since Westphalia. That and neither abolitionists nor antebellum southerners were particularly happy about bloody kansas either.
