>tfw Germany didn't win the Battle of the Marne
>tfw France didn't just surrender, lose some territory and let Germany rise to prominence
>tfw WWI became a horrorshow of attrition
>tfw those millions of lives lost in WWI
>tfw it caused Russia to become a communist police state
>tfw it set the stage for WWII
>tfw the cold war
>tfw Vietnam
>tfw Hippies
>>982068
Shouldn't have taken Alsace lorraine from us, Klaus
>>982068
The Battle of Marne was near the beginning of the War you dingus. If the French just upped and quit right at the beginning they would have lost so much face on the world scene that any chance at world political player pull would have gone straight out the window for the next century and a half with no one ever considering France an ally at all. Furthermore the impact on french territories world wide would have had severe back lashes as well.
It would have not been a slap on the wrist with Germany saying "Bad France, Bad" like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
WW 1 had so much political smut and whorish snobbery that a humble Austrian Prince getting Serbed is just the tip of the shaft thrusting deep into a Hapsburg chamber maiden.
what a good feel that is OP
>>982076
>Alsace Lorraine
I think you mean Elsaß-Lothringen
>>982068
>Fuck you for defending yourself!
>>982068
oh yes, i feel so bad for those poor poor germans for losing both world wars they started after they got tired of being the ineffectual cancer of europe and decided to be an effective one
>>982068
>chat shit
>get hit
>>982160
Nah, last time I was in Alsace most of the street signs were in french :)))))
>>982076
Bismark didn't want to.
>>982176
Bismarck didn't want colonies or a gigantic navy either.
And his generals wanted to take land from Austria, removing it as an potentiional ally.
>tfw Versailles wasn't harsh enough
>tfw Germany wasn't completely dismantled post-WWI
Feels bad guys
>>982169
>WW 1 was started by Germans
aahhh anon, you need to restart your WW 1 habbening studies
>June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand Heir Apparent to the Habsburg Throne and Austrian-Hungarian Empire gets Serbed by Gavrilo Princip outside a sammich shop
>June 30: Austrian Foreign Minister Count Leopold Berchtold and Emperor Franz Josef agree that the "policy of patience" with Serbia was at an end and a firm line must be taken.
>July 5: Austrian Diplomat, Alexander, Count of Hoyos visits Berlin to ascertain German attitudes
>July 6: Germany provides unconditional support to Austria-Hungary - the so-called "blank check"
>July 20–23: French President Raymond Poincaré on state visit to the Tsar at St Petersburg - urges intransigent opposition to any Austrian measure against Serbia
>July 23: Austria-Hungary, following their own secret enquiry, sends an ultimatum to Serbia, containing their demands, and gave only forty-eight hours to comply.
The Ultimatum was for Serbia to come under military occupation of Austria until all nationalism organizations were eliminated, not only that but establish pro-Austrian propaganda only.
>>982189
Nothing of what you said contradict that Germany started the world war.
>>982169
>i feel so bad for those poor poor germans for losing both world wars
It was a lot more expensive for the other parties involved. Both France, Britain and especially Russia lost a lot more men. Russia and Britain lost their Empires. France lost its predominance on the European continent - to Germany, ironically.
>>982193
Wars aren't started by mere declarations, they are to be seen in historical context. And before WW1 began a lot of other things happened that led to a German declaration of war. Blaming WW1 on a singular party only betrays a lack of understanding.
Russia shares a lot of the blame, and to a lesser extent also France.
>>982193
Ok I guess Austria and Germany are now the same people then
>>982198
>Wars aren't started by mere declarations, they are to be seen in historical context.
okay, here's the historical context
>germany invades two sovereign countries uninvolved in the war because ???
>germany brings britain into the war because of this
>later, germany decides to sink a civilian cruise ship and offer support to mexico for an invasion of the US because ???
>germany brings US into the war
if germans weren't eternal retards WW1 would be known as "Meaningless Continental Conflict Where Irrelevant Countries Shit On Each Other #5423"
>>982205
>germany invades two sovereign countries uninvolved in the war because ???
The invasion obviously happened well after the declaration of war, so you actually went forwards in history rather than backwards.
Asking why Russia had any business meddling in Austro-Hungarian affairs in the Balkans for example. Or asking why France backed them in this endeavour.
It was dem non germans fault for resisting!!
Maybe they shouldn't have declared war on all their neighbours? Or even just some of their neighbours instead of all of them
>>982209
>Asking why Russia had any business meddling in Austro-Hungarian affairs in the Balkans for example. Or asking why France backed them in this endeavour.
why would i be interested in asking why europeans make retarded alliances and why would i consider the actions that would merely have lead to a boring european conflict instead of the ones that caused a WORLD WAR
>>982193
I should also add
>German re-alignment to Austria-Hungary and Russian re-alignment to France 1887-1892
>French Foreign Policy Towards Germany - Driven by Revanchism
>British alignment towards France and Russia 1898-1907 - The Triple Entente
>First Moroccan Crisis 1905-06: Strengthening the Entente
>Bosnian Crisis 1908 - Relations between Russia & Serbia and Austria-Hungary Worsen
>Second Moroccan Crisis 1911 - The Entente holds again
>Italo-Turkish War- Ottomans Abandoned, 1911-12
>Balkan Wars 1912-13 - Serbian and Russian Power Grows
>Franco-Russian Alliance changes – The Balkan Inception Scenario 1911-1913
>Anglo-German Détente 1912-14
yes because it is totally Germany's fault for WW 1. Face it, Europe was a fucking powder keg since the Franco-Prussian War. France was butt blasted by Prussia and then politics in the Balkans spurn by Nationalistic Ideology did not mix well. You're a complete moron if you believe that sole responsibility is Germany's alone.
>>982198
>and to a lesser extent also France.
enlighten us to what extent does France share the blame for actively starting the war
>>982212
Because that is what I told you: looking at the historical context.
It's not just about lighting the fuse, it's also about those who conveniently placed the powder kegs who to their surprise blew up around them.
>>982180
Leaving France with that territory would have left the French pride in tact and allowed for peace.
>>982209
>Asking why Russia had any business meddling in Austro-Hungarian affairs in the Balkans for example.
Weren't they sort of like, you know, allies or friends or buddies with Serbia?
>Or asking why France backed them in this endeavour.
You mean how France backed Russia by literally saying "don't do anything that might antagonize Germany"? Hmm...
>>982215
Backing Russia in their imperialistic games at the Balkans - right in the backyard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. France was a liberal republic. Russia was the most autocratic and backwards regime in Europe at the time.
>>982219
I am sorry for this anon being so retarted about WW 1
>>982213
>Europe was a fucking powder keg since the Franco-Prussian War
and it was the Austrians and Germans who brought the matches
>>982222
>Weren't they sort of like, you know, allies or friends or buddies with Serbia?
Serbia was essentially a rogue state at the time, and right in the vicinity of Austria-Hungary. They had no business being "buddies" with them. They were playing with fire right from the beginning.
>>982219
>Because that is what I told you: looking at the historical context.
And I did look at the historical context - Germany turned a CONTINENTAL CONFLICT into a WORLD WAR. The actions of the other parties are IRRELEVANT, because they did not invade TWO UNINVOLVED COUNTRIES and THREATENED another to start a WORLD. WAR.
Enough with the apologist crap, Hans.
>>982213
Powder keg is baby propaganda they teach in school. Prussia started 5 wars in 50 years all on different people and was a threat, end of story. Its just swedish empire electrboo 2 were you alienate yourself diplomatically with war mongering
>>982228
>you guys shouldn't have a foreign policy because anon said so!!
>>982227
>nothing to do with a Serbian, a shittily made pastrami sandwich and Nationalism at its worse
mother of god, where were you educated?
Can war for territory happen again in europe?
>>982233
princip was bosnian
the sandwich anecdote is an outright fabrication
it is perhaps me who should be asking you that question
>>982180
>Bismarck didn't want colonies
That's a myth actually. Bismarck wanted colonies, but he wanted self-sufficient protectorates instead of the money sinks that Germany and every other colonial power got. Hell, he was ecstatic when Guatemala wanted to become a Prussian colony and he was ecstatic when he signed the charter for Carl Peters' DOAG. He only reneged his position on the latter because the DOAG protectorate became a full colony following the Arab Revolt. He was pretty fucking proud of Togoland though.
>>982235
Not in EU territory IMO. But isn't a war for territory happening in Russia & surrounding non-EU members?
>>982233
>nothing to do with a Serbian, a shittily made pastrami sandwich and Nationalism at its worse
it's really nice to blame everything on balkan butthurt but we're out of elementary school so maybe you can realize that a nameless archduke whose only accomplishment is being the namesake for a band in the future getting killed by a bored bosnian is not casus belli for a world war and not the cause either
>>982068
>>982189
>>982201
>>982182
>>982213
Maybe things would have been better if Germany simply hadn't allied itself with Austria -Hungary, but maybe Russia or Britain instead. It was possible.
In 1914 Germany should have told "Sorry, thought luck, Franz. Oh wait you expect us to go go to war for your nephew. Um, No!"
>>982230
Germany went through Belgium because it was the proposed military solution to the two-fronts war issue. There are no neutral parties in a war - this is a foolish belief. Belgium didn't want to let the German forces pass through, and thus it took sides with France in aiding their defence. By the time Germany invaded Belgium the hostilities had already begun. The war had already started. In hindsight it was not a good idea to invade Belgium, since the British naval blockade is what beat them in the end, but back then nobody could have known.
>>982245
>but back then nobody could have known
>>982231
there were few people whom fully cared about the German Unification Wars outside of France and Poland.
Sure, The British Empire kept an eye on it but for the most part India and Africa was taking up most of its time with Trade Routes.
With Russia making gains in the Balkans that's when they decided to switch to France being an Ally but more because the Russian Monarchs had a habit of taking French wives, literally speaking only French inside the Court Rooms.
>Mental gymnastics
please that's about as rich as saying "Communism can work"
>>982242
You're not seriously trying to tell that guy that when a rogue state and terrorist haven, which was Serbia at that time, murders the heir to the throne of a European Great Power it would not warrant a military response.
>>982242
Not him but
>The murder of the heir to the throne by an individual who belonged to an organization that was sanctioned by the Serbian government is not a cause for war
Wut
>>982245
>since the British naval blockade is what beat them in the end, but back then nobody could have known
The Michel Offensive was on the verge of succeeding until American intervention caused such an influx of troops in Europe to halt the German offensive 50 miles short of Paris. The French would likely have made at least white peace if Germany took Paris, but this is all counter-factual history anyways.
>>982245
>but back then nobody could have known.
>nobody could have known invading an uninvolved country allied with the british could have repercussions
nobody who's a retarded fucking german, maybe
also i like how you treat a country not wanting foreign forces using their land as a stepping stone is a bad thing
>>982253
It was the cause though. It was a completely justifiable move by AH and the Entente wouldn't allow it and thus war broke out. Serbia is at fault. Russia is at fault. France is at fault. AH is at fault. Germany is at fault. Laying sole blame on the Germans is daft, when really the majority of the blame lies on Serbia and Russia.
>>982248
Nobody could have known. Germany vastly overestimated the Russian potential. They didn't think they could win against France and Russia at the same time. To circumvent the French defences through Belgium was the only way they believed they could win. Not to mention that the British Empire was already perceived as a hostile power. Germany had a spy in the Russian Embassy who told Bethmann-Hollweg about naval agreements between the British Empire and Russia in regards to Baltic landing operations.
>>982253
>not cause for a WORLD war.
Germany did not go into this with the intention of starting a world war.
>>982221
Which would have made normal diplomacy with them possible.
>>982259
>Germany did not go into this with the intention of starting a world war.
They probably should have thought about that before bringing Britain, Japan, and the US into the war, then.
>>982257
Laying sole blame on the Germans is daft.
But laying the majority of the blame for the conflict being a world war on the Germans is correct.
>>982258
If they didn't think they could win, they shouldn't have entered the war in the first place.
>>982261
>They probably should have thought about that before bringing Britain, Japan, and the US into the war, then.
The vast majority of the war happened right on European soil and rather than "blaming them" for bringing Britain, Japan and the US into the war, you should be thanking them because obviously this is not what they had in mind. They may have been short-sighted, but not stupid.
>>982068
You could have at least used a period-accurate image relative to the Battle of Marne...
>>982236
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip
ethnic serb, so I will use Serb thank you. Also, I like referencing the sandwich thing because I find it hilarious. If I wanted it to factually true to the fabricated tale I would have used the correct sandwich used which was a cheese sandwich.
>>982245
>how dare this neutral uninvolved country try to defend its own independence
>they are guilty of starting a world war the bastards
>>982259
Perhaps not a 'world' war, but Germany went into it with the intention of starting a war with Russia (explicitly) and France (as a consequence but one clearly understood and of their won design), and by extension Belgium (if the Belgians decided to uphold the apparently ridiculous and silly notion that a sovereign country should not bow down to bullies).
>>982268
>you should be thanking them for being short-sighted idiots
????
>>982271
>ethnic serb, so I will use Serb thank you.
you used serbian, which has a different meaning to serb
>>982261
>Japan and the US into the war, then
How did Germany bring the US or Japan into the war? The US joined the war out of their own volition. The Zimmerman Telegram and the Lusitania, among other u-boat incidents, were not justifiable casus belli. Japan joined because it wanted Germany's pacific holdings. They didn't "bring them into the war" as you so boldy claim. Britain didn't even want Japan in the war and how quickly the Japs moved in the Pacific scared the shit out of Britain and made for tense relations once the war was over.
>>982264
It isn't though, as I explained. The circumstances that created the world aspect of the war don't belong to Germany, but to the Entente. The invasion of Belgium didn't create a World War. The pre-emptive mobilization of Russia started a World War.
>>982244
Unfortunately based on how deep the political ties to Austria-Hungry they could not have afforded that option. Political Face would have dropped badly and France would probably taken advantage of Germany's perceived weakness to return Alsace Lorraine territory. I think Germany drew the short straw. The German Unification Wars did not help but they ended up with a terrible hand during the war.
>>982272
First of all, you're using "world war" rhetorically here, in trying to shift responsibility. You got told earlier in regards to the outbreak of the 'war' not being exclusively on Germany but also on the other parties involved, and now you're trying to move goalposts in making it all about the 'world war'. Second, nobody is saying that Belgium is at fault. They fell victim to their geographic location. It is foolish to assume that anyone would waste the lives of hundred thousands if not millions of men when there's a convenient way around nearby.
>>982277
>a foreign military sinking your ships is no adequate casus belli
would the USA only have been justified to defend its people if germany started shelling new york or would even that have been considered an accident?
>>982205
>germany invades two sovereign countries uninvolved in the war because ???
No matter what nation you think deserves the blame, you seriously don't know enough to talk about WWI if you don't understand why Germany declared war on France and Russia
>>982274
You should be thanking them because if it weren't for their move of bringing Britain and the US in, they would have won. Germany vastly overestimated Russia. They would have won the two-fronts war.
>>982275
>playing deep semantics game
ok friend
>>982277
>The Zimmerman Telegram and the Lusitania, among other u-boat incidents, were not justifiable casus belli.
They absolutely were. Punking a nation's citizens and expecting them not to respond is pretty damn stupid, and literally declaring yourself as an enemy of the United States if somebody else makes the first move for you is definitely worthy of war
Also, Britain asked Japan to join the war. They didn't join for no reason, and your short sighted idiot Germans should have expected allies to involve themselves in the war - oh, wait, if they did that they never would have invaded fucking Belgium in the first place!
>>982284
>There are no neutral parties in a war - this is a foolish belief. Belgium didn't want to let the German forces pass through, and thus it took sides with France in aiding their defence.
somehow this sounds like someone is trying to shift some of Germany's blame onto Belgium and trying to pretend like defending your own independence and integrity is somehow part of a larger plan to support another nation.
>>982277
You need to read a book or two. Or even a simple Wikipedia article like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis which is fairly well sourced.
The circumstances of pre-war political realities belong to everyone involved, including Germany.
The reality of converting those circumstances into a war, a world war, belong chiefly to Germany. Who explicitly wanted a war with Russia - regardless of the Russians' reply to their ultimatums. Who encouraged Austria to escalate their own desired conflict in the Balkans. Who invaded Belgium in order to attack France - after presenting the latter with an ultimatum demanding they hand over the defenses constructed against a possible German invasion or face war (just let that hilarious logic of that sink in). Who had in the months and years prior let the political situation develop in the way that allowed for the pre-war situation to develop the way it had - by aligning with Austria, by diplomatically isolating France, then dropping their ties to Russia, bringing those two together.
>>982287
I was talking about Belgium and Luxembourg, actually.
>>982267
Under that premise you might as well give up national sovereignty.
They didn't think they could win conventionally (ironically they could have won - France and Russia were no match for them), so they sought another solution.
I suppose everyone who defends the German invasion of Belgium and Luxemburg in ww1 defend their invasion of them as well as Netherlands and Denmark and Norway in ww2?
>>982286
>your ships
>your
They weren't even American ships. The HMS, which stands for HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP, Lusitania was fucking BRITISH and it was carrying ARMS and thus completely justified to sink. The fact that there were Americans on the BRITISH ship, who were warned MULTIPLE TIMES TO NOT SAIL ON BRITISH SHIPS IN A FUCKING WAR ZONE, is irrelevant. Public sentiment was against the war, even after the Zimmerman Telegram until Congress declared war. Once the war was over, public sentiment absolutely turned back against the war.
>>982290
Untrue actually. Japan asked Britain if they could join the war and Britain hesitantly said yes.
>>982292
>The reality of converting those circumstances into a war, a world war, belong chiefly to Germany. Who explicitly wanted a war with Russia - regardless of the Russians' reply to their ultimatums
The sole problem with this is Wilhelm II sent Nicholas several telegrams stating that he hoped war would not break out and he continued this line in public and private. Neither Wilhelm II or the German public wanted or expected war. It was only upon notification that Russia was beginning to mobilize that public opinion changed and Wilhelm was extremely upset that it would come to war. You need to stop reading Fischer or Wikipedia and pick up an actual fucking book.
>>982291
I'm not blaming Belgium for defending themselves. I'm merely confronting you with the realisms of geo-strategy. If you're in the way of someone powerful enough to get through, then no treaty and no right in the world is going to save you - unless its backed up by enough firepower.
What I'm saying is: the invasion of Belgium is no unusual act in the history of warfare and no completely unexpected act. It had far reaching consequences, but it could as well have not.
Also, by the time the invasion happened, the war had already broken out. By that time, military logic dictated. If you want to look at who's at fault for WW1, you'll have to look at the time-frame before WW1 started - not at the one who made the declaration at war, or who fired the first shot.
>>982294
Thank god
>>982299
the German invasion of Belgium and Luxemburg in WW1 is literally unjustifiable and the actions taken in occupied Belgium and Luxemburg during that war should have been sufficient cause to completely dismantle the German Empire.
But prussiaboo's will always go with the din do nuthin'
>>982301
>hesitantly
I would love any source you have on this idea that Britain didn't want help from Japan after officially asking for it. Or are you pulling it out of your ass just like the rest of your German apologist bullshit?
>>982299
It's not so much a matter of "defending" them but more about rationalising them within the geo-strategic context. These invasions had purely military purpose, they had nothing to do with being evil, power hungry, etc. - they served the purpose of winning the war.
And it's not like Germany had any plans of keeping Belgium. They merely wanted to get through to France in order to end the war fast, since they feared they couldn't win a two-fronts war.
The consequence of it was more severe to Germany than to anyone else. First of all - the plan failed. The route through Belgium did not work (which may have had other reasons rather than the idea itself being bad). Second, it brought other powers in, which later marked the downfall of the German Empire. Germany thought only militarily, it didn't think politically - that's when you put generals in charge of your country's actions who only take a look at things from the military angle.
>>982304
And I'm assuming you'll also have enough integrity to realize that the invasion of Belgium was a German gamble and thus as a direct result any and all outcomes of it, INCLUDING the British entry into the war are directly the fault of Germany which was one of the prime reasons the War reached the scale it did.
>>982308
Literally no one is saying they din du nuffin.
>>982309
Fred Dickinson has a good book on Japan during WWI, which is my source. Also, since everyone on this board loves Wikipedia for whatever reason: In the first week of World War I Japan proposed to the United Kingdom, its ally since 1902, that Japan would enter the war if it could take Germany's Pacific territories.[4] On 7 August 1914, the British government officially asked Japan for assistance in destroying the raiders from the Imperial German Navy in and around Chinese waters. Japan sent Germany an ultimatum on 14 August 1914, which went unanswered; Japan then formally declared war on Germany on 23 August 1914. As Vienna refused to withdraw the Austro-Hungarian cruiser SMS Kaiserin Elisabeth from Tsingtao, Japan declared war on Austria-Hungary, too, on 25 August 1914.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_I
Japan asked to join the war, not the other way around.
The most blame for the European war lies in the hands of Moltke, Hotzendorf and later Enver Pasha
Willy told Moltke to call it off when he saw how real it was gonna get, He flat out refused the order.
Hotzendorf had been trying to invade the Balkans for 20 years and the only one who had the foresight to stop him was of course Franz Ferdinand.
Remember this is the last aristocratic war
>>982304
>If you want to look at who's at fault for WW1, you'll have to look at the time-frame before WW1 started
the years leading up to ww1 do not paint germany in a positive light either - naval race, morocco crises, basically causing france and russia to ally, and finally the blank cheque
>>982308
From a Clausewitzian standpoint Belgium makes sense (of course the massacres are unjustifiable), though who the fuck knows why Luxembourg
>>982312
Germany didn't just move through Belgium it completely and utterly obliterated its economic base and was in the process of purposely destroying its cultural heritage.
>>982314
>Literally no one is saying they din du nuffin.
Except for you.
I'll give that book a read, thanks. But that aside, it's pretty damn stupid to ignore Britain's invitation to the Japanese just because they asked first.
>>982301
>You need to stop reading Fischer or Wikipedia and pick up an actual fucking book.
Coming from a person hell bent on excusing German actions in the lead up to WW1 this is amusing. I would recommend Hew Strachan's The First World War. Just the first volume will do if you are really interested in the war, its origins and its beginnings, including the absolutely and daminingly key role Germany played in sparking the conflict (but I know you aren't).
>>982313
I partially agree - I disagree with it being a gamble, at least not a deliberate one. I don't think they even considered the degree of their consequences. It was a military decision, not a political decision. They merely looked at it on a military map, they didn't consider the political consequences.
However, what I also disagree with is shifting the goalpost of placing the "outbreak" of WW1 at the invasion of Belgium. The war had already started by then and followed its own military logic. The invasion of Belgium made it grow in scale, but the outbreak is still related to the events at the Balkans - and in that, Russia and to a lesser extent also France share a part of the blame.
>>982315
>Moltke
people forget just how close A-H and GER basically were to being military juntas, your bit about moltke being a great example
it doesn't matter what the public thought or even at times what the emperor wanted - head honcho generals wanted a war, and war they would have!
>>982317
>naval race
The naval race is blown out or proportion. Tirpitz wanted a fleet that was 2/3rd of the Royal Navy in order to protect oversea territory. The Royal Navy had a doctrine which stated that the Royal Navy had to be two times the size of the largest continental navies, which caused the "naval race".
Yet for some reason Germany is being blamed for this? A "race" set not even to overtake the other but merely be large enough to not be easily bullied into submission?
And as I said earlier: Russia has been meddling at the Balkans, right in the backyard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They are no innocent party here.
>>982324
You continue to rationalize the German decisions. Why? It's pointless. We all get WHY they did it at this point. We're saying WHAT they did was fucking retarded and ended up causing a world war. Ignorance does not absolve one of their actions.
>>982324
Well given the invasion of Belgium failed in two very distinct ways I'd consider the entire plan a serious gamble from the get go.
First off the Germans heavily underestimated the amount of resistance Belgium would bring which was a failure state given the requirements of a fast conquest and secondly the invasion gave the British a justifiable cause to declare war which in turn shifted the entire power balance.
Both failures could have actually been predicted.
>>982321
>Except for you
Except I didn't do that.
>But that aside, it's pretty damn stupid to ignore Britain's invitation to the Japanese just because they asked first
The invitation was an acquiescence and how Japan was treated by Britain at Versailles shows they at the very least regretted their decision.
>>982322
>Coming from a person hell bent on excusing German actions in the lead up to WW1 this is amusing
I didn't excuse any of Germany's actions, outside of unrestricted submarine warfare. I excused AH's casus belli. I just don't agree that the deserve the full blame for the outbreak of the war, on a global scale or otherwise, like you, because it's absolutely fucking foolish to assume so.
>>982334
I rationalise them in the military context. It was risky, but it was a good plan. It could have worked.
And again: you're shifting goalposts in making the dialectic distinction between "world war" and "war". You're seeking to shift blame exclusively to Germany in order to conveniently place the beginning of WW1 at the invasion of Belgium because you know that the context of the events of the Balkans doesn't let Russia and France go out blameless - but that is where the actual war started. The invasion of Belgium and the events that followed were the consequence of this war that started at the Balkans that spiralled out of control. As I said earlier: you should be thanking Germany for making it a "world war", because had it been left to France and Russia alone, they wouldn't have won.
>>982339
>The invitation was an acquiescence
Even working from the standpoint that this was true, nothing forced Britain to accept their request.
>and how Japan was treated by Britain at Versailles shows they at the very least regretted their decision.
Pompousness was a European trait, not a solely British one. Nobody gave any of the Asian representatives at Versailles the time of day.
>>982344
majority of the people involved in the war would have been vastly better off with a quick german victory than the drawn out world war it became
so no, not thanking germany for that invasion what so ever
>>982347
>Nobody gave any of the Asian representatives at Versailles the time of day
Actually, Wilson did give the Japs and the Chinese a fair showing. He just didn't give the Vietnamese or Indians a fair showing.
>>982347
>nothing forced Britain to accept their request
Just desperation.
>>982344
I "conveniently" place the start of WW1 at the invasion of Belgium because another meaningless continental conflict does not bear mentioning in any way, shape, or form.
>>982349
>Actually, Wilson did give the Japs and the Chinese a fair showing.
I did say that pompousness was a European trait, did I not?
>>982335
>First off the Germans heavily underestimated the amount of resistance Belgium would bring which was a failure state given the requirements of a fast conquest
It was very un-clausewitzian in that regard - a serious mistake on the German side. However, you should consider the situation they were in. It wasn't a lightly made decision. They thought it to be the only solution to win a two-fronts war against France and Russia. In regards to the latter argument I'd say that desperate times ask for desperate means. And I maintain that it could have succeeded. The major problem was a miscommunication in the German ranks. The Bavarian troops in the South did not act according to plan. They brought the French advance to a halt rather than falling back and leading them with them. This gave Joffre the relocate the troops in time for the Marne battles.
>and secondly the invasion gave the British a justifiable cause to declare war which in turn shifted the entire power balance.
That is the political dimension of the plan and it betrays another problem with the German Empire. It was essentially the military who were in charge of politics. A smart politician would have likely seen the risk and possibly prevented the action. However, generals obviously only consider the military logic - and by that logic it was a reasonable move.
>>982339
>I just don't agree that the deserve the full blame for the outbreak of the war, on a global scale or otherwise, like you
But I have never said they deserve the full blame.
Only a major part of it.
>>982351
A continental conflict between three Great Powers is not a "meaningless continental conflict".
>>982354
>Nobody gave any of the Asian representatives at Versailles the time of day
>I did say that pompousness was a European trait, did I not?
So is it Europeans or everybody, you goal post shifting mongoloid?
>>982357
Wait, scratch that - Austria-Hungary was technically a Great Power too - at least on paper.
So it was four Great Powers.
>>982356
>Only a major part of it.
Which is still absolutely disputable considering Russia, AH, and France are equally at fault for the outbreak of war.
>>982357
It really is, though.
>>982348
>majority of the people involved in the war would have been vastly better off with a quick german victory than the drawn out world war it became
That quick victory could have only happened with Schlieffen's plan though. The conventional war against France and Russia would have likely been won by Germany, but it would have been costly.
>>982359
You're right, my mistake. Everyone barring one guy treated the asian representatives like shit.
>>982363
Which is an utterly retarded point of view. It would have been a major conflict, with or without foreign powers. As I said earlier: the majority of the war was fought on European soil. It wouldn't have made a significant difference, the only difference would have been that Germany would have won and less Brits would have lost their lives.
>>982355
Given that during the German invasion Belgium itself made several critical errors I would say that the entire plan to go through Belgium was ill conceived at best.
Had the Belgians actually succeeded in maintaining the Antwerp fortifications long enough for the British to land their troops, Germany would have found itself in a most dire situation.
>>982370
The Germans almost won even with British intervention. The real nail in the coffin was American intervention just in time to hal the Michel Offensive before it could take Paris.
>>982371
>Given that during the German invasion Belgium itself made several critical errors I would say that the entire plan to go through Belgium was ill conceived at best.
The execution was also a matter of the younger Moltke not being all too good at his job. But I still say the main problem was the North/South divide among the German troops and the miscommunication issues.
>>982370
>Which is an utterly retarded point of view.
I see no reason to treat the continental conflict with any reverence because, likely, it would not have affected the world nearly as much as the world war did.
>>982379
>it would not have affected the world nearly as much as the world war did
It would not? What tells you that a revolution in Russia wouldn't have happened anyway? The Brits would have kept their Empire and posed a future competition to the US. Germany would have become the hegemon of continental Europe and France would have likely been humiliated and itching for revenge.
Of course it would have affected the world and significantly so.
>>982387
Let's see where that leaves the world, then.
>Japan doing nothing
>Britain unaffected
>France remains butthurt
>Russia maybe gets a revolution
>Ottoman Empire still intact
>Austria-Hungary still intact
>USA unaffected
Now compare that to what actually happened and maybe you can start to see why the continental conflict wouldn't have affected shit compared to the world war Germany caused.
>>982396
Not him but
>Japan doing nothing
Fucking around in China is doing nothing?
>Britain unaffected
War profiteering and colonialism.
>France remains butthurt
Revanchism is dirty.
>Russia maybe gets a revolution
I don't think this a maybe. Nicholas had 2 revolts before WWI even broke out and one of them was successful in installing a legislative body.
>Ottomans
Fair
>AH
Federalized, but fair.
>USA unaffected
Unlikely. The US was shifting their gaze back towards Cuba which was particularly unstable at this time. Had the US not gotten involved in WWI, the Platt Amendment intervention in 1917 would have been far more expansive. Due to intervention in WWI however, the US could only afford to send two regiments of Marines to Cuba instead of an occupying force as it had in the past.
>>982396
That's a rather short-sighted view, since each of these have far-reaching political consequences. Not to mention the millions of lives lost in that conflict makes it not a "regular" inner-continental conflict. If four great powers are involved, it's by no means "regular".
>>982405
>Fucking around in China is doing nothing?
Man, by that point, fucking around in China was basically a right of passage.
>>982406
>That's a rather short-sighted view, since each of these have far-reaching political consequences.
You could say the war not happening at all would have had just as many far-reaching political consequences, so it's utterly pointless to argue on those terms.
>>982412
Actually at this point, meaning after 1902, fucking around in China was a big fucking no-no because Britain and the US would slap your shit.
>>982413
The war would have severely shifted the distribution of power in Europe and its disposition. Calling it a regular inner European conflict doesn't do it justice - not to mention that the losses wouldn't have been that much lower. Certainly not on the French, German and Russian side.
>>982068
What are you talking about history doesn't tie in like that its all disconnected events and every 20 years becomes completely unrelated to the last 20 years.
>>982361
>Which is still absolutely disputable considering Russia, AH, and France are equally at fault for the outbreak of war.
You know how I know you are full of shit? That you somehow attempt to equate France's involvement in the outbreak of the conflict to Germany's level. That alone absolutely disintegrates any semblance of a point you might be attempting to make and proves what you know (or rather, don't) about the subject.
>>982421
>Poincare telling Nicholas to not acquiesce under any circumstance isn't equal to Germany's blank check
Way to fucking out yourself as a frog.
>>982375
>The Germans almost won even with British intervention. The real nail in the coffin was American intervention just in time to hal the Michel Offensive before it could take Paris.
you overestimate the impact of americans on the spring offensives - it was negligible
the true impact of the american entry into the war only came later
in the form of the manpower reserves which allowed for an absolutely lightning fast recovery of losses sustained in the above
and an embarkation on a glorious hundred days of unprecedented gains and victories
>>982425
>you overestimate the impact of americans on the spring offensives - it was negligible
Actually, I don't. It's generally accepted in academia and military history that the reinforcement by US troops allowed the Michel Offensive to be halted and the Meuse-Argonne to result as quickly, not just the latter as you suggest.
>>982423
Nice try, but just like with your views on the history of the war, you are incorrect.
Good job bringing up Poincare, as most of his actions during the time leading up to the war also undermine the notion that France would be somehow equal to Germany in escalating the conflict. In case you didn't know (I don't think you do), they included a policy of slight rapprochement with Germany, an anti-revanchist point of view, the hindering of hawkish military tendencies, refusing to allow an early mobilization, withdrawing troops from the border in order not to provoke Germany, or outright telling Russia not to do anything that might cause the Germans to mobilize or declare war.
>>982438
>or outright telling Russia not to do anything that might cause the Germans to mobilize or declare war
>giving Poincare credit for Viviani's doing
Unfortunately for you, Poincare did the exact opposite by giving Russia a blank check in St. Petersburg.
>>982417
>The war would have severely shifted the distribution of power in Europe and its disposition.
Not even half as much as world war 1 actually did. Not to mention the war may have ended way earlier and with far less casualties if A) austria-hungary and the ottomans had been able to fight against the french and russians alone and B) the germans trying (and failing) to force their way in through the franco-german border leading to an earlier stalemate that may have left both powers unwilling to continue the conflict
Anyway, we're just going in circles, so this is a rather pointless affectation.
>>982428
in what alternate universe? during operation michael, there were 4 (four) american divisions operating on the entire frontline of the western front, the 42 and 26 and 2 in quiet sectors, with only the big red one in the thick of it
>>982454
>B) the germans trying (and failing) to force their way in through the franco-german border leading to an earlier stalemate that may have left both powers unwilling to continue the conflict
This is what happened, yet they continued.
>Anyway, we're just going in circles, so this is a rather pointless affectation.
Pretty much. The point remains that the war started at the Balkans and the responsibility for that is not on Germany alone. The fact that later actions within that conflict led to it spiralling out of control was more detrimental to the German war effort than to anyone else.
>>982447
I find it interesting that you literally conjure up things from thin air that we cannot possibly know, such as the minutes of the St. Petersburg meeting which did not survive, in an attempt to support your flimsy narrative, while you try to downplay or disregard things we actually do know from records, such as Poincare being involved in the decisionmaking leading to Viviani's message towards the Russians to be careful.
>>982459
>The point remains that the war started at the Balkans and the responsibility for that is not on Germany alone. The fact that later actions within that conflict led to it spiralling out of control was more detrimental to the German war effort than to anyone else.
Both these things are true, yes. Just saying, the Germans were far from innocent in increasing the scope of WW1, and if nothing else they deserve the blame for that.
>>982456
This one. You're completely discounting the fact that while there were only 4 independent American divisions, the vast majority of US soldiers were used to reinforce Entente positions under Entente command until after the Spring Offensive was over.
>>982461
He literally went to St. Petersburg to ensure the Entente Cordiale was upheld. That was the sole purpose of the visit.
>>982462
>Just saying, the Germans were far from innocent in increasing the scope of WW1, and if nothing else they deserve the blame for that.
As I said earlier: I don't consider the element of "increasing the scope" really that noteworthy. By that time the conflict had already started and the events that increased the scope were a consequence of military actions within that conflict. The root of it is what started the conflict, not actions within it. Not to mention that most of it was more detrimental to the German war effort than actually helping it. WW1 was still a mostly European conflict and the increased scope mostly meant more trouble for Germany rather than completely unrelated things blowing up en masse around the globe.
>>982463
?!?!?! the vast majority of US soldiers at the time of operation michael WERE in those divisions!
it seems to me you are confusing your timeline, it would not be until well after michael when the bulk of the american forces arrived in france, let alone reached the frontlines
>>982235
Russia literally annexed Crimea not too long ago.
>>982471
There were 318,000 US troops in France when the Spring Offensive began which is more than 4 divisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Michael
Second, even the fucking kiwis note that only the divisions you discuss were under independent command. The rest were under direct French or British authority and were key in defending Amiens and the Somme in April.
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/western-front-1918
>>982464
You are thinking of the alliance between Russia and France, not the Entente Cordiale between France and Britain.
Also let me point you towards your own post here: >>982447 In which you claimed he gave them a blank cheque. Which we have no way of knowing, by the way. But now you are saying he went there to reaffirm their alliance.
>>982485
>But now you are saying he went there to reaffirm their alliance
>reaffirming an alliance in a time of crisis is not the same as a blank check
It's the same thing Germany did.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Entente
>your frog face when you see it
>>982481
listen, you seem to be mixing up a ton of things - you seem to be mixing up the entire spring offensive endeavor and operation michael, you seem to be mixing up this "independent command" idea with the fact that it is those divisions that we just talked about in the previous posts your NZ link talks about, and you are mixing up the divisions in the frontlines with the american troops arriving into the country and spending several weeks in the rear - which comprised the american force together with the men of the four (shortly afterwards five) divisions at the time
>>982490
>It's the same thing Germany did.
No, having a high level meeting between allies from which we have limited records cannot by its very nature be perceived as the same thing as having records of posturing, aggressive orders and explicitly mentioned desire to support a war or launch one.
>your frog face when you see it
My face when I see this?
>Entente cordiale
>In 1904, Britain and France signed a series of agreements called the Entente cordiale.
>>982505
(And incidentally what limited writings we do have - Poincare's journal, for example, do not suggest in any way that the focus of the meeting was the Balkans crisis, but I did not want to confuse you further.)
>>982481
Also I have to go now but in case you really do want to learn about the topic so that you do not keep your misguided and incorrect notions, I have to recommend Strachan's The First World War - the first volume to be specific. It really is a great work and you will learn a lot!
>>982174
And when I was in Paris, all street signs were in arab.
1871 worst year of my life. Versailles was a pale imitation of the burdens Prussia imposed upon France.
>>983565
>using the Cuck insult to defend Germany
>>982277
>killing a country's civilians and trying to get a regional power to attack them are not adequate casus belli
The eternal teuton strikes again.
>>983601
>implying i was not just bantering the frenchie frog
>implying i'm a kraut
>implying i was defending Cuckmany
