Central Powers in WW1

>>1790720
The bad guy was that asshole Wilson who should have left well enough alone. Instead of letting Europeans settle things on their own, his interference would lead to WW2 and the Cold War.

Austria started the Austro-Serbian war.

It was Russia that escalated it into World War 1 with their painfully obvious warmongering intent, mobilizing men on the German and Austrian border even before the Austrian ultimatum was finalized.

what was germany's explanation for declaring war on neutral belgium?

>>1790774
The same one as for invading neutral Luxembourg

>>1790779
They didn't even bother with any kind of pretense?

>>1790784
They needed to pass there to avoid the fortifications on the German-French border
They never made up any pretext, they just invaded

>>1790767
Russia very clearly let it be known it would defend Serbia, Austria pulled the trigger aware of it.

Germany then made it a World War by preemptively declaring war on France, and by gratuitously fucking up Belgium.

>>1790731
Wilson was right in jumping in to end the war.

He was dead wrong in opposing plans that would divide Germany into several smaller states. Versailles was far too lenient.

>>1790720
>there were no "bad guys"

There were bad guys, the whole "no one was to blame" is a meme, and a bad one at that.

Also, I'd gladly put Italy and Romania in the "asshole" category during that conflict as well, both jumping in for completely expansionist and aggressive reasons.

Even if the central powers were the "bad guys", they were royally fucked over afterwards, leading directly to WW2

A central power victory would have been more beneficial to Europe as a whole

>>1790800
The Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary were truly fucked, yes.

Germany was not nearly fucked enough, it should have been completely partitioned, as Clemenceau and Foch argued for.

Because most people barely know anything about the origins of WWI and just assume it was everyone's fault. The funny thing is that those myths come from massive propaganda efforts by Germany to make themselves look like not the main responsible, despite all the evidence proving it. In the end their self-revisionism contributed to WWII.

>>1790800
the germans were planning on mass deportations of belgians to make it into german land, hardly seems more benevolent

>>1790811
I know there's plenty of blame to go around, but would l be wrong in saying the the war was primarily Germany's fault?

If that's so, how come it avoided being partitioned?

File: TreatyOfSevres_(corrected).png (98KB, 1024x738px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1024x738px

>>1790811
>The Ottoman Empire

eh id say they got the best outcome compared to the other two, pic related is what the entete had originally planed for turkey after ww1 if attaturk didnt save them

>>1790844
They fought against it
Pussy ass German never ever resisted an occupation
Be it by the French from 1795 to 1813 and after WW1 or by the Soviets/Americans from 1945 to 1990/2016

>>1790720
>attacked first, so bad guy
The Central Powers were weaker, which is why they attacked first. When you are 100% sure there will be war, and you are weaker, you have to take initiative to have any hope of success - mobilize first, take land fast, hope to prevent the enemy from gathering his strength from around the world.

>used bad technologies, so bad guy
Again, the firebombing, zeppelins, gas, submarine warfare, these were all things the germans didn't want to use, but had to, because they were weaker.
It is the weaker fighter who will try a kick in the nuts, not the stronger one, who knows he can win just exchanging punches.

>rape of belgium
Exaggerated for propaganda.

>armenian genocide
Terrible thing, and condemned from all states, including the Central Powers.
I don't consider it malice though, more like incompetence. Because the armenians were a risk population, who were expected to join the Allies and revolt, they were moved further inland, and their property was confiscated. The movement of the population was executed poorly, and many died. You can spot similar ottoman incompetence when moving their own troops, if you look at the army that literally froze to death on its way to attack Russia. The main cause of death was your legs going black and you not being able to stand.
A similar "genocide" also occurred with tatars in USSR (joined Axis, were later moved, died during movement) and jews in socialist Germany (zionist declaration of war on Germany in media, moved to labor camps, died due to misery in camps and slave labor there) and asians in the USA (moved to camps as to not aid the japanese, property confiscated, many died there).

The only "bad guys" I can think of and justify are the greeks and the italians, because they didn't honor their international treaties - the greeks had a defensive pact with the serbs, and they didn't honor it, and the italians were part of the Central Powers, but left to join the Allies for land.

>>1790839
Austria first, but Germany is the one that led to it being one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.

There's several reason why it avoided being partitioned:

It was mostly ethnically homogeneous, unlike the other two main Central Powers.
Wilson wanted a trading partner in Germany, which was expected to recover from the war in a decade or so, and become the first European economical superpower again.
Britain was not so keen on seeing France become the only continent superpower.
Russia in general.

>>1790844

Even with what transpired, I'd say Germany got off lighter than the Ottomans. The gross ineptitude of the Weimar Republic was far more responsible for the post-war crash than the supposed severity of Versailles, which was really no more than a slap on the hand.

>>1790844
>if attaturk didnt save them

More like if the revolution in Russia didn't save them.
Had Russia remained a monarchy, this would've been forced. Or even a liberal ruled Russia.
The communist party ran as a pacifist one, they promised peace on the same day they were put into power, no matter the cost, and they did it.
It is also why for a very short period Germany was fucking huge, as it gained a tremendous amount of land from Russia in the hastily made peace deal.

>>1790784
They sent Belgium an ultimatum but with Luxembourg they just walked straight in.

>>1790800
Maybe Germany shouldn't have deliberately fed hyperinflation to avoid paying their reparations.

>>1790866
>The gross ineptitude of the Weimar Republic was far more responsible for the post-war crash than the supposed severity of Versailles

The Great Depression was
I don't know why people try to relate the interwar German economical crisis with the (unenforced) Versailles treaty when the crisis was taking place on a global scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Effects

>>1790800
I read some book by an englishman advocating that Britain should've stayed out of the war. Germany would've won, he claimed, and it would basically lead the some sort of European Union regime, while Britain remains an empire, while USA remains a lesser state, while Russia crashes.
This, he argued, would've been for the best, and the british wouldn't lose so many soldiers (less than everyone else, but more than they are used to).

>>1790864
>who were expected to join the Allies and revolt

they did those many times before actually, im not saying the ottoman dindu nuffin but the armenians are also partly to blame for being a thorn on the ottoman side

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904_Sasun_uprising
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1894_Sasun_rebellion
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C4%B1ld%C4%B1z_assassination_attempt
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ottoman_Bank

>>1790864
>The Central Powers were weaker, which is why they attacked first. When you are 100% sure there will be war, and you are weaker, you have to take initiative to have any hope of success - mobilize first, take land fast, hope to prevent the enemy from gathering his strength from around the world.

It doesn't justify attacking in the first place.

>Again, the firebombing, zeppelins, gas, submarine warfare, these were all things the germans didn't want to use, but had to, because they were weaker.
It is the weaker fighter who will try a kick in the nuts, not the stronger one, who knows he can win just exchanging punches.

Using a "win at all costs" mentality the way the Germans did in WW1 does not absolve them of the moral gravity of their crimes.

>Exaggerated for propaganda.

Exaggerated and highly propagandized? Absolutely.

It was still absolutely immoral, and far worse than any war crimes committed by the Entente, except perhaps Britain's abysmal mismanagement of India at that time.

>The only "bad guys" I can think of and justify are the greeks and the italians, because they didn't honor their international treaties - the greeks had a defensive pact with the serbs, and they didn't honor it, and the italians were part of the Central Powers, but left to join the Allies for land.

I wouldn't call the Greeks "bad guys" simply for refusing to come to the aid of Serbia.

I wouldn't absolve Austria and Germany of their responsibility in the war, and of the fact that they were considerably more inhumane than the Entente, they absolutely deserve to be called "bad guys".

But yeah, Italians were absolutely a bunch of two-timing opportunistic backstabbing rats.

>>1790878
The Ottomans are at fault not for moving the armenians, but for being bad at it. Its a million dead caused by negligence and incompetence, as with the irish famine (incompetent british), the tatars and ukrainians (incompetent soviets), the polish, homosexual and jews (incompetent germans) and the asians (incompetent americans).
On the micro level there were bad people who surely killed or let them die out of hatred, but on the macro scale, the strategists just had a bad plan that they didn't oversee, resulting in death.

>>1790884
You're being awfully optimistic about human nature if you think all of the recent genocides were simply the result of mismanagement rther than planned out of malevolent intentions.

>>1790884
>the asians (incompetent americans)
incompetent in the sense that we didn't kill them all?

>>1790720
>war is good guys vs bad guys

>>1790897
Incompetent in the sense that most of the asians moved to camps (where they lived in misery, were raped and some died) weren't even japanese.
The chinese, who were at war with the japanese, also were sent to camps, in case they join Japan or some stupid shit. The real reason was to confiscate their property, really.

>>1790899
>all wars are morally subjective

Watch it mate, you might cut yourself with that edge.

>>1790900
The Japanese were enslaving, murdering, looting, raping and conducting grotesque medical experiments on living victims all over East Asia.

>>1790910
Your neighbor raping children in his basement doesn't excuse you from raping women in yours.
Come on, thats logic 101.

>>1790774
>>1790779

In fairness, Benelux countries shouldn't really exist. Better that they just be subsumed into France/Germany.

>>1790883
Why is Italy guilty? The triple alliance was a defensive pact, it was in their right to not intervene.

>>1790918
Austria declares on Serbia, Italy doesn't, since its a defensive pact.
Russia declares on Austria, Italy doesn't, even though they are in a defensive pact.

>>1790918
Ignoring the defensive agreement it had with the Triple Alliance would have been fine.

Joining the war when they see the opportunity to expend their territory at the expense of your supposed ally pretty squarely falls into the definition of opportunistic landgrabbing and gratuitous warmongering.

>>1790912
How you treat your family is your business. Just don't bomb Pearl Harbor = big mistake. And don't give me that "Oh, we needed the oil!" bullshit. You wanted to take the Philippines.

>>1790932
But what does this have to do with sending asians to labor camps and confiscating their private properties?
You are going all MURIKA FUCK YARR instead of making an argument.

>>1790914
given that at the time belgium managed to be an economic powerhouse and managed to completely ruin the german plans I'd say it more than deserved to be a country

>>1790927
>>1790931
To be honest the Italians originally sought an alliance with Germany. It was easy to tell they wouldn't support Austria, the Habsburgs were historical enemies of pre-unification Italy.

>>1790933
>But what does this have to do with sending asians to labor camps and confiscating their private properties?
How does this equate with disemboweling live Chinese peasants?

>>1790942
How does japanese killing chinese excuse americans killing chinese?
You are being illogical again. Consult with >>1790912

>>1790941
>It was easy to tell they wouldn't support Austria, the Habsburgs were historical enemies of pre-unification Italy.

As was France.

>>1790947
France is still the country that liberarted them from Austrians
Austria is the country that occipied them for centuries

>>1790947
France played a big role in the independence of Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italian_War_of_Independence

>>1790945
>You are being illogical again
Come back after you have read a real history book.

>>1790960
How does japanese soldiers committing atrocities excuse american government stealing from chinese and locking them up in camps?
It doesn't. You are either trying to deflect, or lack the logical thinking to see why you are wrong.

The japanese could've been eating people alive and it wouldn't excuse americans imprisoning chinese and confiscating their private property. Think for a moment, please.

>>1790978
>The japanese could've been eating people alive
They were eating downed pilots alive. They couldn't keep meat fresh in the tropics so they kept them alive, sawing and cannibalizing them a bit at a time. They were reduced to starvation, stranded on islands. Obviously you have been kept completely ignorant of history.

>>1790988
Obviously you have been kept completely ignorant of logic, because you continue to not make an argument for the USA imprisoning chinese and confiscating their property under the pretense that they might join the japanese empire and riot.

>>1790990
That's not logic. It's random, meaningless, moral equivalency.

>>1790994
What moral equivalency? I tell you that the USA did something wrong, you get offended, and excuse it by saying Japan did something wrong. Yes, so what? Every state has done wrong things, one doesn't excuse the other.
Again, X state doing something wrong doesn't justify Y state doing something wrong, especially when its not a direct response. Confiscating chinese americas property didn't stop the japanese from killing chinese.

>>1790720
>Why do some people try to meme the Central Powers of WW1 into being the good guys
They do not act ouf of maliciousness (well unless they are Berlin bootlicker wehraboo kind of losers).

They act out of ignorance.

The "slither into war" and "equal responsibility" (or "jermany dindu nuffin dey wuz Gut Jungs") is a product of WW2 following pretty quickly after WW1 and then the early cold war.

With the horrors of war fresh in mind, the continent experienced yet another conflict. Already before the second war did some parts of the Allied populations reel from the destruction from the first, this was further augmented by literal German propaganda (they started a think tank to literally promote the idea that Germany dindu nuffin), and culminated after WW2.

At that point in time you have a desire in the west to "rehabilitate" Germany after the rise of the Soviet Union and the tensions between the east and west.

So historiography came to be dominated by conciliatory themes. Not only with regard to WW1 but also WW2 - if you are familiar the whole "Germany was the first victim of the Nazis" spiel.

Sadly, the fallout of this obviously skewed and biased portrayal is felt in history teaching and popular history to this day.

It was not until the 1960s when a new wave of researches challenged it. People like Fischer, and that one guy who worked on the British Great War documentary and got into a fight with Liddel-Hart.

Since then you would be hard pressed for anyone in academia to be as abysmally happy go lucky everyone join hands and declare themselves equally to blame for the Great War as fifty years ago, but popular and simplified history remains tainted and probably will for many years to come.

>>1791036
As for WW2 getting the same treatment - just remember how widespread the idea that "it was just the Nazi SS Evil Men who did the bad things, Mein Opa did not do anything evil (and he was just following orders)" is. Just remember that for decades, historiography regarding the war on the Eastern Front was literally eating up whatever German generals told them ("ASIATIC HORDES!") as access to Soviet records was impossible or severely limited (and obviously skewed by the commies when it did appear).

I find it equal parts hilarious and sad that to this day, basic understanding of two of the most important events in god knows how many centuries is LITERALLY based (in part) on butthurt Imperial German dindu nuffin propaganda and Nazi masturbatory wankery.

>>1791036
>>1791041
We share opinions on pretty much everything, except I still wouldn't call the germans in WWI the bad guys.
Read up on the huge diplomatic effort to prevent the war in the last moment after the kaiser got home from his vacation, during which things had escalated and he wasn't available to prevent it.

>>1791043
"Bad guys" is a pretty useless label (well except for shit like pol pot or hitler) but Germany was definitely closer to being bad guys than good guys in the war.

Not as much because of their actions in the buildup (to something most of their leadership wanted - war) because ultimately that's just realpolitik and empires gonna empire. Though it certainly wasn't good guy behavior.

But because of their conduct in Belgium and the east - the latter gets overlooked all the time, but the Nazis weren't the first ones to come up with radical ideas such as racially fuelled policies, hating on the Slavs, and other ethnic shenanigans. They just ramped it up to eleven.

>>1790790
>Russia made it abundantly clear that they were going to start world war one, that means they didn't

>>1790720
>Why do some people try to meme the Central Powers of WW1 into being the good guys
>>1790828
>Because most people barely know anything about the origins of WWI and just assume it was everyone's fault.
Is this bizarro /his/?
From my experience, most people seem to believe that the Central Powers were literally Nazis with Pickelhauben and that Germany was solely responsible for the war. After all, the Allies even made the war guilt question a separate article within the Treaty of Versailles, and the idea that Germany was guilty was accepted as historical fact for the longest time.

>>1791043
The kaiser was a retard that didnt control his own country
The German general staff wanted and created this war

>>1791077
>After all, the Allies even made the war guilt question a separate article within the Treaty of Versailles

Wut?
The treaty stated that Germany was responsible for the destruction caused in Belgium and Northern France
It absolutly isnt about who started the war

>>1791107
>It absolutly isnt about who started the war
>"as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
Literally an excerpt from the treaty

>>1791136
was the war not imposed on the allies by the aggression of germany?

>>1791077
>the idea that Germany was guilty was accepted as historical fact for the longest time.
That's not really the way it went. That idea got attacked from both sides virtually the moment the ink dried on the treaties. It barely survived the next fifty years. It was all "no one is to blame let's join hands and not repeat this great evil again" most of the time. Only in the 60s did it get challenged - and rightly so, because if there are great powers who are the most to blame for the war, they are Austria and Germany by far.

>>1791071
Russia warned Austria their actions would have consequences, and they still went through with it.

Germany then declared war on the entire world.

To blame Russia is absolutely absurd.

>>1791139
My point is just that the treaty claims that the war was imposed by Germany, whether that really was the case or not is a different matter.

>>1791151
Also don't forget Germany wanted to go to war as soon as possible before the Russians finished rearming in 1917

>>1791136
>>1791158
Germany was the aggressor in France and Belgium
As I said, that article isnt about the war as a whole but about the destruction in Belgium and France

>>1791136
>the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies
Because that is clearly true for the Western allies: Germany and her allies imposed war on France and Belgium (and thus the UK as well given their relationship with Belgium). Even most of the people who defend the Central Powers try and put the blame on Russia, not the Western allies, and Russia wasn't a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles and thus isn't included in the "them" here

>>1791077
You need to read some more history boi. Germany started a massive propaganda campaign to show they dindu nuffin right after the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and a lot of useful idiots in the UK and US especially agreed with them. This was a major fuel for appeasement. BTW, what pisses me off more than anything is how the pop history version of the early 20th century says both that Versailles was so mean and unfair, but also Chamberlain was so stupid for doing appeasement. Isn't this contradictory? If Versailles was unfair to Germany, then surely appeasement (which was literally just revising Versailles in Germany's favour) was logical?

Of course >>1791036 is right that it got kicked into overdrive after WWII when Germany became a Western ally, and only began to be questioned in the 1960s. How most academic historians are clearly on the side of "Germany and Austria were the most responsible"