>>577078 >Austria: Hey Germany, will you support is in this police investigation we want to handle in Serbia? >Germany: Sure, senpai. You go right ahead, I'll go on vacation for a month. One month later... >Germany: OH GOD AUSTRIA WHAT HAVE YOU DONE Quickly dispatch diplomats to Moscow we must have peace what the fuck is wrong with you tell the French to stand down what is this shit just calm and relax, we can talk this through.
>>577087 >implying Austria didn't secretly want war. >implying Serbia didn't offer to submit to a conference >implying the kaiser didn't say war could be avoided after reading Serbia willingness to submit to a conference. >implying Europeans aren't just bloodthirsty
>>577166 Those were dropped about as fast as the french dropped their parade uniforms. Just an outdated sentiment that served not much purpose, like using ivory for the uniform buttons initially, but quickly moving towards wood.
>>577189 Yeah, I almost immediately noticed I misread your post horribly, but the delete timer is pretty long.
I still disagree, because Austria always thought of that region as their domain, and with good reason, and because there was also a movement to make a triple union, of Austro-Hungary-Serbia (or Slavia). In fact if the Central Powers had won the war, its very likely that such a triple union would've been made with the now larger Bulgarian state, as they already had a germano-leaning government, intelligentsia and an austrian monarch.
Bismark was largely responsible for the formation of the web of treaties and alliances that made a world war possible. On top of that he was, (and still is) the only person who truly understood these arrangements in their entirety. This was meant to give Germany a diplomatic edge over other countries who participated since Bismark was basically the only man in all of Europe who understood these treaties in their entirety. I like to think it was an early example of "Peace through threat of mutually assured destruction". So some people could use this as an excuse to "blame" Germany for the war.
The other side of the coin was Kaiser Wilhelm was already seen as an arrogant warmonger even before the war, on top of being a rather ineffective statesman.
Furthermore, this was argueably the most horrific war in human history up to this point and the world needed someone to blame.
I mean, that's a motive. But they really should have checked their ambitions by asking how this would disrupt the minority ethnicities in the empire. In the end, annexing the serbs ruined it and through ww1 the disintegration was complete, and the Hapsburgs just became jailers for a bunch of hostile and repressed peoples.
>>577075 >and not before asking for permission to pass through. wew lad that sure makes it completely justified >can we violate your neutrality? >no >k, then we'll violate your neutrality >rapeofbelgium.png
>>577217 >russia declares war on germany Thats okay. >france declares war on germany Thats okay. >germany declares war on belgium Thats horrible, what monsters! Poor little chocolate hands Belgium, they didndu nuffin.
>>577258 He proposed to replace Austro-Hungarian dualism with 'Trialism,' a triple monarchy in which the empire's Slavs would have an equal voice in government with the Germans and Magyars. This was source for the conspiracy theory that Austrians paid for his assassination, and to start the war.
Maybe because they started the war for no good reason, massacred civilians, needlessly destroyed historical artefacts, introduced the use of chemical weapons, and generally just acted in no way better than they did in WW2?
>>577258 "Francis Ferdinand was a prince of absolutist inclinations, but he had certain intellectual gifts and undoubted moral earnestness. One of his projects--though because of his impatient, suspicious, almost hysterical temperament, his commitment to it, and the methods by which he proposed to bring it about, often changed--was to consolidate the structure of the state and the authority and popularity of the Crown, on which he saw clearly that the fate of the dynasty depended, by abolishing, if not the dominance of the German Austrians, which he wished to maintain for military reasons, though he wanted to diminish it in the civil administration, certainly the far more burdensome sway of the Magyars over the Slav and Romanian nationalities which in 1848–49 had saved the dynasty in armed combat with the Hungarian revolution. Baron Margutti, Francis Joseph's aide-de-camp, was told by Francis Ferdinand in 1895 and--with a remarkable consistency in view of the changes that took place in the intervening years--again in 1913, that the introduction of the dual system in 1867 had been disastrous and that, when he ascended the throne, he intended to re-establish strong central government: this objective, he believed, could be attained only by the simultaneous granting of far-reaching administrative autonomy to all the nationalities of the monarchy. In a letter of February 1, 1913, to Berchtold, the Foreign Minister, in which he gave his reasons for not wanting war with Serbia, the Archduke said that "irredentism in our country ... will cease immediately if our Slavs are given a comfortable, fair and good life" instead of being trampled on (as they were being trampled on by the Hungarians). It must have been this which caused Berchtold, in a character sketch of Francis Ferdinand written ten years after his death, to say that, if he had succeeded to the throne, he would have tried to replace the dual system by a supranational federation."
>>577276 >they didnt start the war, in fact sought to prevent it in the last moment >they didnt massacre civilians any more than other armies, thats just english propaganda gone through the roof
However they did fight tooth and nail, including using very "dirty" and dishonorable tactics. One can argue if morals should be applied in combat, but I agree they were the ones to make war truly horrible, and not the noble sport it was considered before, both with their refusal to surrender from a clearly lost war and fight until civilians starve to death, and with their tactics on the field.
Germany invaded France over an irrelevant Balkan conflict between Austria and Serbia which had nothing to do with either Germany or France. They absolutely started the world war. Pic related.
And I suggest you look up the rape of Belgium. The Germans destroyed entire towns and massacred or summarily executed thousands of innocent civilians. And no, nobody else did anything of the sort in WW1.
And as for the use of chemical weapons (and flamethrowers, and other "dirty" tactics), they all broke international agreements.
Also this timeline is irrelevant, Russia and France were in de facto war with Austria, and Germany was their ally. Stop learning history from wikipedia tables. Germany was trying to prevent war until the very last moment, and when they saw its inevitable went on the offensive rather than wait to be conquered.
>>577344 >Also this timeline is irrelevant, Russia and France were in de facto war with Austria
That's 100% false though France had nothing to do with Austria and Russia hadnt decided anything yet. By your logic, Germany was with Austria since the beginning and thus can be considered to have started the war along with them
>>577344 >Russia and France were in de facto war with Austria WTF, no they weren't. France wasn't even remotely involved in this, except diplomatically in trying to deescalate the conflict.
>Germany was trying to prevent war until the very last moment Literally Nazi tier revisionism. Germany invaded France, a country completely unrelated to the conflict (and Belgium, a neutral country). But any opportunity was good enough for Germany hoping to acquire "Lebensraum" and colonies.
Germany declared the war after their diplomat was sent out of Moscow, and was told that it will be war. France was an ally of Russia, and would join with them the same way Germany would join with Austria.
The war was decided when the russian and german diplomats in Moscow had a talk about it. After that it was just about who attacks first.
>>577374 >The war was decided when the russian and german diplomats in Moscow had a talk about it.
Pretty sure it was rather decided at this moment
>On 2 July, the Saxon Ambassador in Berlin wrote back to his king that the German Army wanted Austria to attack Serbia as quickly as possible because the time was right for a general war since Germany was more prepared for war than either Russia or France. On 3 July, the Saxon military attaché in Berlin reported that the German General Staff “would be pleased if war were to come about now”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#German_attitude_to_war
Try to defend the krauts as much as you want, fact is that they wanted and caused this war
>>577339 Posts like this are the reason I come to this board. Within the realm of what could be referred to as, "history academia," it would be career suicide to say something like this. Here, it is commonplace. Imagine if one professor said something another professor didn't like, and he told him, "You are wrong because xyz, you fucking tard."
This is how academic arguments should work. Proposition, evidence, refutation, insult and/or character assassination. "The Olmec civilization was not inspired or created by Africans. Currents don't work like magical conveyor belts through the sea. The idea that their statues have negroid features is a racist proposition and is insulting to the native population. Van Sertima is a fucking dindu wewuz, and other such words I won't say post because I'm not on /pol/." A 4 sentence academic refutation template for 4chan academics.
>>577432 That and the fact they attacked Russia, France and Belgium in a row despite receiving no declaration of war, as you can see on pic there >>577315
When a country declares war on another country, you can think it must have its reasons But when a country suddenly declares war on three countries in a row, thus involving three great powers in what was a local war, eventually turning it into a world war, it's the bad guy
>>577424 I sometimes wonder if, hundreds or thousands of years from now, some advanced civilization finds 4chan's archive. Just as we have those writings on the walls of Pompeii, they would peruse every post and believe that people were how 4chan posts represent them.
>>577445 You guys are fucking retarded, Russia was the first super power to mobilize, mobilization can mean some huge difference in manpower. If you mobilize too late, you start with a significant disadvantage
>>577445 >When a country declares war on another country, you can think it must have its reasons >But when a country suddenly declares war on three countries in a row, thus involving three great powers in what was a local war, eventually turning it into a world war, it's the bad guy Look everybody, this guy believes in "legitimacy". Where's my laughinggirls.jpg?
The only truth about political philosophy as attested by history is that might makes. Might does not necessarily make right, because right depends on many different factors. But the reality of the history of human relations, the only reality, is that might makes. If you are around after everybody who challenged you is gone, then you may as well be right. For certain though, you exist, when they do not.
The rush for colonial holdings and subsequent buildup of arms and resources prior to the First World War was such that an open conflict with the other great powers was an inevitability. It just so happens that another truth of history is that states who practice hard power as their norm, as opposed to soft power, are a lot more open and honest about their intentions. Germany did so because they knew that having the upper hand in the conflict would increase their chances of survival. Gaining the upper hand in warfare involves having an intimate knowledge of the Principles of War.
Any military student knows the Principles of War. One of which, and one of the most important, is surprise. Germany saw that their enemies temporarily lacked one of the principles of warfare, security, which they (in keeping with sound military doctrine) promptly exploited. They exploited it so they could have maximum time to position their forces in an advantageous position, in order to make use of another principle of warfare, mass. Mass is not so much about size, but about placement plus efficient sizing of the element.
>>577405 This is about Germany wishing Austria would attack Serbia, beat them in two weeks time, and have it done with before France and Russia can mobilize. It was because of the long wait that the Germans wanted to avoid war at the end.
>>577492 Russia had a small army mobilized and actually near Germany for training maneuvers at the time things heated up. They already had units deployed before the fucking assassination. If not for that they'd be doomed, Russia is notorious for being slow to mobilize for anything ever.
>>577315 >>577329 >>577363 >>577405 Holy fucking shit this idiot. >Ignores Triple entente >Ignores that Izvolsky literally said "This is my war" when it finally broke out >Ignores that France and Russia had been arming themselves on a much faster rate than Germany for years, if not decades >Ignores that Russia mobilized first, which in the tense political situation of 1914 was de facto declaration of war. >Ignores that France had for decades, and especially the last few years before the war, actively tried to destroy the triple alliance and gain allies to revenge the 1871 catastrophe >Ignores that the British had taken hostage 2 German trade ships during the change of the century, giving Germany a valid motive to create the Hochseeflotte and starting the arms race >Ignoring pretty much all the politics before the first declaration of war.
To add my personal opinion, the war would have been averted if Austria-Hungary had prepared itself better and invaded Serbia immediately after the assassination(there was a short period of time when nobody would have intervened and would have understood the cause=
>>577860 They sure as hell backed them hard when they told them to suck it up and accept the ultimatum. Which the Serbians did with all but one of the points. Which would not have mattered anyway since Austria was dead set on a military showdown.
How can Russia have started the war when the state they backed (Serbia) did not invade one of the Central Powers.
Austria-Hungary made the initial moves which led to war. Germany was the major shareholder in the alliance. It was therefore Germany's fault and responsibility that they could not control their "ally".
>>577864 > and realized that france did not want war during the crisis leading up to ww1 That is true only because France wasn't yet confident in it's and its allies' ability to defeat Germany. The French military buildup was aimed to be finished in 1917, and same applied to the Russians(AND GERMANY KNEW THIS). It was a legit pre-emptive strike by the germans. Of course that does not release them from the blame. All the sides are to be blamed for WW1 and all of them were the villains.
>>577909 >All the sides are to be blamed for WW1 All of them(Besides perhaps Austria-Hungary, which had little to win but everything to lose), actively chose to choose the path of war instead of appeasement(some more than others; i.e Germany tried to mutually limit the arms race against the British but was denied)
>>577976 >Russian mobilisation was a reaction to the Austrian shelling of Belgrade on the 29th. Russia began partial mobilization on the 29th(as you wrote, as response to Austrians shelling Serbia->Russian mobilization aimed against Austria-Hungary), which "forced" Germany to mobilize in response to back up Austria-Hungary.
"There was no adjustment possible which was acceptable to both parties. Tirpitz had begun the naval race with the intention of threatening, if not defeating Britain. Once the British decided to meet the German challenge, the naval question became the symbol, if not the substance of far more basic fears. Without its margin of naval supremacy, the British could not block the German bid for power."
Steiner and Neilson.
How did Germany seek to limit the naval arms race when it was the power which started it?
Also a couple of facts to remember >The first battle between French and German forces was fought in Germany, when the French attacked Germany in what was called the Plan XVII >The first battle between Russians and Germans was fought in Germany, when the Russians began their offensive in August
>>578019 >Tirpitz had begun the naval race with the intention of threatening, if not defeating Britain Propaganda. Tripitz's plan was never to "threaten" or "defeat" the British naval superiority. Tripitz's naval plan pictured a 2:3 ratio between German and British navies, giving the British a significant advantage, but still keeping the Hochseeflotte a viable threat when played defensively. >How did Germany seek to limit the naval arms race when it was the power which started it? To Germany, as a colonial power and a "great power", it was necessary to have a strong trade fleet and navy to protect it's interests overseas(as was evidenced by the temporary capture of german trade ships in December 1899 by the British navy). It was the British who were unreasonable with their two-power standard fleet. Germany attempted negotiating a limitation/agreement on the naval arms race in 1912, but these negotiation attempts were destroyed by foreign minister Edward Grey(who was anti-German to the soul)
>>578108 >GERMANY STARTED THE FUCKING WAR YOU DELUSIONAL NAZIBOO SHITHEAD They de facto and de jure didn't, as the Austria-Hungary was first to declare war and Russia was the first to mobilize. >NAZIBOO Nazis didn't exist back then.
>>577087 >>577222 >Germany wuz a gud boy he didn't wanna fight Which would be why he demanded the French hand over their two most important fortress cities, Toul and Verdun, so that Germany wouldn't declare war on them right?
>>578093 Jesus christ, German forces literally drove at least 34,000 Herero and Nama civilians into the Namibian desert in 1904 and starved them to death. The Germans weren't exactly human rights crusaders either.
>>578120 Austria declared war on Serbia. Germany was the first to declare war on either Russia or France, and the first to invade. This would have been nothing but another Austro-Serbian war if it hadn't been for Germany chimping out.
>Nazis didn't exist The revisionism according to which Germany wasn't responsible for escalating WW1 and was just an innocent victim is complete Nazi propaganda. And btw Germany acted in no way better in WW1 than in WW2. All the things that the Nazis usually get blamed for (militarism, invasions, war crimes, massacres, nationalistic racism, even genocide) were already very much part of imperial Germany.
Tirpitz did indeed think of challenging the supremacy of the Royal navy. See Schottelius and Deist. Marine und Marinepolitik. Especially the essays by Bergahn, Kennedy and Steinberg.
Britain's naval supremacy and her interest in the balance of power were inexorably linked. Think from the British perspective. We relied upon the navy for the security of our empire. Naval agreements failed because Britain wanted to retain a healthy naval advantage and Germany refused to curb her fleet building.
>>577078 >Signed the treaty to say they are to blame for the war Yeah, they had so many options at that point, didn't they? Before Hitler, people were realizing that Germany was unfairly shit on at the end of WWI
>>578172 >The revisionism according to which Germany wasn't responsible for escalating WW1 and was just an innocent victim is complete Nazi propaganda Nobody is claiming Germany is an "innocent victim". Nor is anyone claiming that Germany isn't partially responsible for the escalation of WW1. But it's a fact that Germany's role in the escalation did not exceed anyone elses role, and Germany can't be blamed any more or less than any other country of the war. > All the things that the Nazis usually get blamed for >militarism, Prussian militarism yes, but militarism and vengeance mentality also flourished in pre WW1 France. >invasions Imperial Germany did not fight a single invasive war against non-African forces between it's creation in 1871 and 1914. >war crimes Everybody did that, including Britain. >massacres Boer war. >nationalistic racism, What is "white mans burden"? >even genocide) Congo, Native Americans, Opium wars... >were already very much part of imperial Germany. They were part of every single fucking European colonial power at the time. Germany was no better or worse than the others.
>>578207 >Tripitz did indeed think of challenging the supremacy of the Royal navy. Only defensively in the risk theory. Tripitz never proposed a naval program that would have given the Hochseeflotte capability to outright defeat the British navy one-to-one as is presented in his plans. In "risk theory" the conflict between the fleets in being would lead to British victory. However, the cost of victory for the British would be too high, as the losses would severely threaten their ability to maintain and keep overseas colonies. Tripitz counted on this threat that the british wouldn't attempt destroying the german fleet, and the two powers would achieve status quo. >Britain's naval supremacy and her interest in the balance of power were inexorably linked. There was no "balance of power". The British were the unchallenged superpower of the seas, and they wanted it to remain so. > Think from the British perspective. We relied upon the navy for the security of our empire. So did Germany. And France. Britain was no exception, and they failed to take this to account. They thought they were the only ones who needed a Ocean fleet(because Island nation), or they simply ignored the fact that other great powers needed to protect their overseas interests too. >Naval agreements failed because Britain wanted to retain a healthy naval advantage the two-power standard wasn't in any way "healthy" to anyone else than the British. > Germany refused to curb her fleet building. the fact that Britain had history of using the Royal navy to strong-arm economical competition, Germany needed a fleet capable of defending itself against the British threat. The British seeked complete unipolarity in the seas, Germany wanted multipolarity.
>>578275 >England cared about Belgium and France. England did not give two shits about Belgium. They used it as an excuse. A valid excuse If Belgium had not asked for help, the BEF would have entered Belgium regardless.
>>578228 No, they weren't. Foch and the French were convinced they weren't shit on enough, and the British were just frustrated because the Weiamr republic would literally deliberately crash their own currency and ruin their own economy than to properly pay off their reparations.
>>578327 His argument was that it was incompletely mobilized due to the fact that RUssia was significantly less industrialized and connected via infrastructure than the West. Which is correct.
However, his argument is still retarded, since Russia clearly clarified to Germany that it was mobilizing only to protect Serbia against Austria-Hungary, and Germany was the one that figured it would declare war anyway.
>>578406 A mobilization is not an act of war. Russia's interests were solely in defending Serbia's sovereignty against Austria-Hungary (after, one should remember, the Serbians had just agreed to all but one clause of one of the most humiliating ultimatums known to history) and show off to the Balkans, at least until Germany proceeded to declare war against Russia.
Austria-Hungary sparked a regional war. Germany was the one that made it a world war.
>>577050 >Hey Russia what are you doing I see you mobilizing >Well we are, but we're just protecting Serbia from Austria-Hungary given that Austria-Hungary declared war in spite of the fact that Serbia agreed to all but one condition the Austro-Hungarians listed >Well we can't have that, we war you. France, you're friend with Russia right, you going to declare war on us? >Well, we could look past this one mayb- >Prove it, give us your two most strategically vital fortress cities to prove that you aren't going to attack us (Because cities in France pose a threat to German territory) >No that's fucking ridiculou- >WELL WE WAR YOU. Belgium, I know you're completely unrelated to this war, but let us through so we can invade France to show your neutrality or we war you. >No that's ridiculous, if France invades us we'll join you bu-- >WELL WE WAR YOU. Britain I know you have a fucking defensive treaty with Belgium but if you could ignore it altogether that'd be nice >No that's not how it works, we war you >THE ETERNAL ANGLO STRIKES AGAIN, NOW WE ARE BOTH AT FAULT Germans, everyone.
>>578426 >A mobilization is not an act of war de Facto in that situation it was considered as one, as there is no other reason to mobilize than war. >Russia's interests were solely in defending Serbia's sovereignty against Austria-Hungary Which were in conflict between Austria-Hungary's interests and thus German interests. >(after, one should remember, the Serbians had just agreed to all but one clause of one of the most humiliating ultimatums known to history) which was after a certain Archduke was murdered by a Serbian terrorist. >Germany was the one that made it a world war. Somehow when Germany protected it's ally's interest it's bad, but when the French, Russians and the British do it it's good and justifiable French could have declared neutrality. Russia could have simply not mobilize and agro the Central powers.
>>578492 >de Facto in that situation it was considered as one, as there is no other reason to mobilize than war. War, which Russia clarified, was solely in defending Serbia >Which were in conflict between Austria-Hungary's interests and thus German interests. So France has the choice of being Neutral when its ally is invaded, but Germany doesn't when its ally is invading another sovereign nation that had essentially agreed to compromise its national sovereignty to avoid war? >which was after a certain Archduke was murdered by a Serbian terrorist. When the nation at fault completely admits its guilt and agreed to prosecute every single serbian you list and you still declare war on them, the fault really isn't with you at that point. >French could have declared neutrality. They fucking couldn't have, because the Geramns demanded that the French hand over two of their cities just to guarantee their neutrality. Which is of course a fucking reasonable thing to do, given that French defensive fortifications would be vital in compromising German territory, right? >Russia could have simply not mobilize and agro the Central powers. Austria-hungary could have simply not declared war and agreed to literally remove anything in the Serbian public sphere that said anything mean about Austria Hungary and removed any number of Serbians from their government offices while conducting an Austro-Hungarian criminal investigation on Serbian Soil, all of which the Serbians had already agreed to do.
>>578500 This argument would hold water if Afghanistan agreed to: >(5) To accept the collaboration in Serbia of representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government for the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the territorial integrity of the Monarchy; host United States law enforcement and military units in order to suppress Al-Qaeda, >(1) To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the general tendency of which is directed against its territorial integrity; >(3) To eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, both as regards the teaching body and also as regards the methods of instruction, everything that serves, or might serve, to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary; Remove anything remotely insulting about United States in its media and textbooks, >(4) To remove from the military service, and from the administration in general, all officers and functionaries guilty of propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy whose names and deeds the Austro-Hungarian Government reserve to themselves the right of communicating to the Royal Government; remove any number of its government officials on office, >(2) To dissolve immediately the society styled "Narodna Odbrana," to confiscate all its means of propaganda, and to proceed in the same manner against other societies and their branches in Serbia which engage in propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy...to prevent the societies dissolved from continuing their activity under another name and form; Commit all its forces into eliminating Al-Qaeda, >(9) To furnish the Imperial and Royal Government with explanations regarding the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian officials...who...have not hesitated...to express themselves in interviews in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government; and to justify literally every mean thing any member of the Afghan government said about the United States.
>Nobody is claiming Germany is an "innocent victim". Someone ITT certainly claimed that Germany "tried to prevent the war", which is completely preposterous.
>militarism and vengeance mentality also flourished in pre WW1 France. The revanchists were politically completely in the minority.
>Imperial Germany did not fight a single invasive war Except you know, WW1.
>Everybody did that, including Britain. Britain sure as fuck never did anything that compares to what Germany did in Belgium. They also never used chemical weapons or flamethrowers.
>What is "white mans burden"? I'm talking about racism against other Europeans. ie "we Germans are the superior race destined to rule as a master race over the inferior mud races like the French etc". No the Nazis didn't invent any of that, this thinking permeated imperial Germany already.
And no, none of this was part of any other European country but Germany.
>>578518 >>578518 >War, which Russia clarified, was solely in defending Serbia And their only way of actually doing so was through Austria-Hungary. Blank check, remember? >So France has the choice of being Neutral when its ally is invaded, but Germany doesn't I didn't say so. All of them and none of them had the chance to opt out. But somehow it's only wrong when Germany did it. > when its ally is invading another sovereign nation that had essentially agreed to compromise its national sovereignty to avoid war? You don't understand the importance of a fucking Archduke being murdered during those times. >When the nation at fault completely admits its guilt and agreed to prosecute every single serbian you list and you still declare war on them, the fault really isn't with you at that point. I'm not saying that Austria isn't in the wrong here by being unreasonable. But they gave an ultimatum and the ultimatum was denied. They got their reason to war. Germany couldn't afford to dump decades of alliance on the basis of >yeah sry about Archduke but srsly you should just wait it out. >They fucking couldn't have, because the Germans demanded that the French hand over two of their cities just to guarantee their neutrality. You forget the fact that before that demand Germans had already once asked for France's stance on keeping neutrality, and France had basically said "we do what we care", giving no guarantee. Germany also gave another option: If the French neutrality would be guaranteed by Britain, French territories would not be demanded as guarantee. You expected Germany to simply trust France's statement of "meh, maybe"? >Austria-hungary could have simply not declared war and..... Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to take responsibility of the assassination, and Serbia refused. I already addressed that the demands were not in proportion, but at the time Austria-Hungary had suspicions(later proven wrong) that Serbian government was funding or supplying the Black hand.
>>577277 >irredentism in our country ... will cease immediately if our Slavs are given a comfortable, fair and good life" instead of being trampled on (as they were being trampled on by the Hungarians).
This guy was based as fuck, I say this as a Hungarian, he would had saved Eastern Europe if he wasn't assasinated
>>578627 >And their only way of actually doing so was through Austria-Hungary The Russian Army at this point having not even touched Austro-Hungarian or Serbian territory before Germany leaps in arms swinging. >All of them and none of them had the chance to opt out. >But somehow it's only wrong when Germany did it. No, it's wrong because Germany imposed conditions upon France and Belgium that made it impossible to opt out without war. >You don't understand the importance of a fucking Archduke being murdered during those times. You don't understand Serbia nearly completely capitulating. >But they gave an ultimatum and the ultimatum was denied. Given that ultimatum was not exactly reasonable to begin with, nobody in the rest of the world really shared the opinion that this was a good reason to go to war. >Germany couldn't afford to dump decades of alliance But somehow it expected France and Great Britain to do so. >Germany also gave another option: If the French neutrality would be guaranteed by Britain, French territories would not be demanded as guarantee. So another breach of national sovereignty in exchange for neutrality? Again, this is an absolutely unreasonable demand given France had not killed any archdukes. >You expected Germany to simply trust France's statement of "meh, maybe"? No, I expect Germany not to put out ridiculous demands and then somehow feel aggrieved when they aren't met. >Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia to take responsibility of the assassination, and Serbia refused. Serbia didn't refuse. It agreed to take responsibility, to do absolutely everything in tis power to put down the Black Hand, to cooperate with Austria-Hungary and even have Austro-Hungarian representatives in Serbia to supervise it. The only thing they didn't agree to do was to have Serbian courts run by Austrians. Serbia took full responsibility.
>>578648 Mobilization isn't war. Russia and Austria-Hungary mobilized in 1912, no war happened. >Russia was the first to mobilize No, Austria-Hungary mobilized on July 25th, Russia mobilized on the 28th, after Austria-Hungary had already declared war.
>>578594 >Someone ITT certainly claimed that Germany "tried to prevent the war", which is completely preposterous.
Germany made appeasement attempts through the decade, most of which were trampled by Sir Edward Grey. >The revanchists were politically completely in the minority. And yet one of them was the Prime minister, twice, and another was the deputy of Paris. >Except you know, WW1. Can you read? >Britain sure as fuck never did anything that compares to what Germany did in Belgium Boer concentration camps. Massacres of indians during protests' during interwar period... Mau Mau uprising... Examples are aplenty. >I'm talking about racism against other Europeans Oh totally didn't exist >In 1894 Alfred Harmsworth commissioned author William Le Queux to write the serial novel The Great War in England in 1897, which featured Germany, France and Russia combining forces to crush Britain. Twelve years later Harmsworth asked him to repeat this, promising the full support of his formidable advertising capabilities. The result was the bestselling The Invasion of 1910, which originally appeared in serial form in the Daily Mail in 1906 and has been referred to by historians as inducing an atmosphere of paranoia, mass hysteria and Germanophobia that would climax in the Naval Scare of 1908–09. Articles of the Daily Mail regularly advocated anti-German sentiments throughout the 20th century, telling British readers to refuse service at restaurants by Austrian or German waiters on the claim that they were spies and told them that if a German-sounding waiter claimed to be Swiss that they should demand to see the waiter's passport. I also remember Brits doing linkage between Germans and Huns. >And no, none of this was part of any other European country but Germany. Jesus christ you Eternal Anglos.
>>578691 >In 1894 Alfred Harmsworth commissioned author William Le Queux to write the serial novel The Great War in England in 1897, which featured Germany, France and Russia combining forces to crush Britain. Nationalism =/= racism.
>>578670 >HUR DUR EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE You can try to single out these who to blame for WW1, and it being such a disaster, you may as well call them villains, i.e. people who cause death and suffering of others. There is no need for any kind of "objective morale" here.
>>578708 Laws are intended to delineate what is good and what is bad. They are not always so, and standard for what is good and bad vary by jurisdiction, but the courts by extension are intended to impose that delineation.
>>578658 >The Russian Army at this point having not... But they had just threatened to do so by "making clear" that the mobilization is projected against Austria-Hungary. >No, it's wrong because Germany imposed conditions upon France and Belgium that made it impossible to opt out without war. Did not. B > nobody in the rest of the world really shared the opinion that this was a good reason to go to war. But nobody denied that it wasn't a reason. If Austria-Hungary had invaded during the first two weeks instead of WAITING FOR A FUCKING MONTH, nobody would have lifted a finger to object. >But somehow it expected France and Great Britain to do so. As are you expecting Germany to do. Srsly, I'm not arguing for German innocence, I literally said >ALLof them and NONE of them. The alliance chain didn't give anyone except Britain and Russia leverage to move(Russia had no "black on white" obligations regarding Serbia(which was going to fall under central hands regardless of Russian support), and the British weren't obligated to intervene by military means according to the Treaty of London if Belgiums neutrality was intervened(Grey lied about this in his war declaration speech). Triple entente however did.)
>>578769 >But they had just threatened to do so by "making clear" that the mobilization is projected against Austria-Hungary. Just as they had in 1912. Both sides backed down then without war, Germany was the one that removed that possibility BY declaring war. >Did not. >The German Government would, however, feel the deepest regret if Belgium regarded as an act of hostility against herself the fact that the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory. Literally "Let us through your neutral country or we war you" >As are you expecting Germany to do. No, I am not. I am expecting Germany not to escalate a situation that was previously avoidable (again, threats and mobilization were not sufficient to start a war in 1912) and then immediately impose unreasonable conditions upon potentially neutral countries that left little recourse except war. >which was going to fall under central hands regardless of Russian support This is not a justification for anything. >and the British weren't obligated to intervene by military means according to the Treaty of London if Belgiums neutrality was intervened Acting to defend a nation unjustly induced into a war is not having an equal part in instigating a war that was already occurring.
>>578788 Laws are imposed in reflection to the views of what is good or bad espoused by society at large, and conventions of war, prisoner treatment and the conduct of war are similarly reflective upon a general consensus of what is good or bad. As such the ideas of good and bad are absolutely relevant, especially when this topic discusses why Germany is seen as the Villain in the context of the society that played a role in promulgating and upholding these laws.
>>578811 Ah, missed the other clause of the German ultimatum to Belgium. >4. Should Belgium oppose the German troops, and in particular should she throw difficulties in the way of their march by a resistance of the fortresses on the Meuse, or by destroying railways, roads, tunnels, or other similar works, Germany will, to her regret, be compelled to consider Belgium as an enemy. Again, "Let us through or you are our enemy"
That said, the high command did put into effect orders and training that minimized the ability of men and officers to react to the situation in the ground. This coupled with inefficient artillery usage turned Somme into a meat grinder.
My point was that all the things listed in the post I originally responded to are less damning indictments of Germany's moral character, and more actions that pretty much all the countries fighting took.
>>578917 One man can never force more than a few other men to his rule, nevermind a civilization or society, without their consent and assent. Society is formed by consensus, be it behind a single individual or otherwise.
>>579007 Nonsense. To fight whom? The mob is never too weak and divided to fight any single ruler, no matter how strong he may be. It is only when the ruler has the voluntary, willing assent of a significant portion of the mob willing to enact violence or depravity upon dissenters that he is ever able to control a civilization or the consensus of society, or that he can claim to reflect the views of the mob.
>>579015 >To fight whom? The taxman, the slavedriver, the duke, etc. Which they did quite often. >The mob is never too weak and divided to fight any single ruler, no matter how strong he may be. Potential and actuality isn't the same. They're weak and divided in their minds and in their actions. They might even be materially depraved. >It is only when the ruler has the voluntary, willing assent of a significant portion of the mob willing to enact violence or depravity upon dissenters that he is ever able to control a civilization or the consensus of society, or that he can claim to reflect the views of the mob. You are using approval and assent synonymously. You're also disregarding things like propaganda and dependency. With that said, it's never black and white, but a mixture of non-coercion and coercion. I agree that society is mob rule, but not necessarily majority mob rule, and that it only works with assent, but assent with a wildcard. Also I'm not the guy you were talking to originally.
>>578232 >but militarism and vengeance mentality also flourished in pre WW1 France. they flourished so much that the anti-war socialists were firmly in power that the french government prevented the army from drawing up mobilization plans that the french government actually actively hindered fast mobilization during the crisis that the french pulled back troops several miles from the border in order not to antagonize the germans that the french literally told russians to stop any actions that might antagonize germans those dastardly french and their absolutely equal fault in causing the war, entirely equal and comparable to someone who is dishing out ultimatums, invading neutral countries and telling their allies to go to war!
>>577075 >>577977 >So did a lot of other countries, which arent portrayed as villains. >lists Ottoman Empire and the Russians Yeah, neither of these two are demonized or villainized, irrespective of whether or not they deserve it.
>Bulgaria Not exactly much of a 'loser' of that conflict, compared to the other Central Powers at the very least. They lost, more-or-less, by being a part of said alliance.
>Austria-Hungary The other 'villain who began WWI' when Germany isn't the nearest convenient punching bag.
>They only invaded Belgium, out of those countries, and not before asking for permission to pass through. >They only invaded Belgium >only invaded Belgium >and not before asking for permission to pass through.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.