German Empire

>listen Wilhelm
>there are two big factions in Europe
>you have the Franco-Russian alliance, they're the big land powers
>there's the British, who are the big sea power
>you want to get in good with one of them, to balance out the other
>what do you mean no

Hereditary monarchy is stupid.

>>1872653
>let me just kick out the great balancer as well

>>1872642
they were stronger than any single European Power, but not stronger than all the European Powers.

as for why it happened, the alliance systems of Europe were designed to create a balance of power, to make sure no one player had it all, and the Franco-Russian alliance was specifically designed to counter Germany, and was Bismarck's nightmare come true. and it worked, it cost 4 years of traded blows and 10 million men, but the alliance did what it was meant to do, stop Germany.

>>1872642
Really bad diplomacy and natural reactions to an overwhelming power.

>>1872642

What they did isnt so remarkable. They were the most populated European country after Russia (in ww1 Germany had 60 million people and France 40 million)
They lost because they were at war with every other great power, and that is not sustainable.
Napoleonic France lost for the same reason.
You cant be at war with everybody all the time.

Spain stopped being the most powerful European for the same reason, they very often were at war with France, the Netherlands, the Ottomans and England simultaneously + also Sweden for a while. And they lasted as the top dog much longer than Germany while having a much smaller population than France, and I think they could only recruit subdits from the crown of Castille for their wars + mercenaries.

>>1872642
Eternal Anglo, we've been over this.

File: judenputsch.jpg (447KB, 1524x1262px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1524x1262px

They trusted the Jews.

>>1872741
>I declared war on the entire planet and lost
>JOOOOOOSSSSS

inb4 "what's Belgium lol"

inb4 "the Zimmerman telegram was a fake"

inb4 the hundred days offensive never happened

inb4 the Turnip Winter never happened

inb4 the Ludendorff didn't beg for an armistice.

File: Walter_Rathenau.jpg (11KB, 200x272px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x272px

>>1872754
I wonder who was responsible for that.

>>1872642
>Why the fuck did that happen?
Tried to fight everyone at once and didnt hit hard enough in the very early stages. Schlieffen plan was plausible, once the advance into france was stalled the war was lost

Remember germany basically ran schlieffen plan 2.0 in ww2 and it worked absolutely perfectly, but they still lost the war. Although given how much weaker russia was in ww1 than in ww2 its entirely possible knocking france out would have ended the war on german terms

>>1872642
start shit, get hit

Poop lol

>>1872741
I'll copy and paste what I wrote in one of the other two active "le stabbed in le back" threads, because fuck putting in any more effort into rebuking a bullshit /pol/ """info"""graphic that takes zero effort to spam.

Firstly the banner of your macro says "German Revolution of 1918-19" but the list of leaders appears to be an earlier or opportunistically edited list of the leaders of the Spartacist Uprising. That one had to be snipped from a separate article to the other shows that dishonesty was intended and not accidental.

Secondly, Karl Liebknecht is unusually far down that list as he was co-leader of the Spartacists with Rosa Luxemburg and responsible for much of their published material. He was an was not Jewish.

Thirdly, the Spartacist uprising was only relatively small part of the revolution as a whole. It happened in the wake of the Kaiser abdicating and the Chancellor stepping down, and the opposition in your macro, Friedrich Ebert, was the leader of the Social Democrats party from which the Spartacists split. A revolution, the revolution, had already been successful in shifting the status quo.

Finally, one other vital aspect of the revolution ignored is the naval mutinies caused by the Imperial Navy leadership's plans for a final 'suicide cruise'. The mutinies and roving gangs of mutineers fomented the revolution, being the cause of much unrest and a trigger for broader uprisings.

For /pol/ the "German Revolution of 1918-19" begins in 1919, starting and ending with the Spartacists, dishonestly ignoring the actual revolution as a whole because they found a part of it with a few more Jews floating about than usual.

Why the fuck are these borders so damn aesthetic
Someone help me out here

File: 100.png (156KB, 322x1041px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 322x1041px

>>1872642
You can be as strong as you want, when everyone's against you, you lose

>>1873324
France was just butthurt because "le hexagon" is so shit-tier in comparison.

jews

File: german revolution.png (92KB, 1158x480px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1158x480px

>>1872741
see pic

>>1872642
>let's break our alliance with russia and continue being buddies with austria, tho we smacked austria in the process of creating our empire, they're still german
>no need to reassure our non aggression pact, muh relationship with muh cousin is enough
>let's start a naval arms race with the enemy of our enemy that happens to be the largest naval power, that will be fun
>what, the russians are allied with france?
>what, the evil anglo that ruined my limp arm allied france?
>provokes france, twice
>provokes russia
>gives austria a BLANK CHECK during yet another crisis
>invade a country that dindu nuffin to attack france from another angle
>tries to get mexico to invade america

File: 1471879890323.png (76KB, 487x789px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 487x789px

>>1872642
>>1872653

File: WW1.png (94KB, 841x596px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 841x596px

Germany's retarded "pre-emptive" plans

>Dude let's start a major war with an European power to prevent another major war lmao

>>1872642
chat shit get banged

>>1872642
But they're still the most powerful country in Europe

>>1872653
The Germans would have never allied with the French or Russians.
That alliance was founded to protect both of them against the Krauts

>>1872931
>Schlieffen plan was plausible
The idea of knocking out one enemy fast so you don't have to fight two people at the same time is plausible and basics of combat. Schlieffen plan not so much.
It was written on outdated experiences of Russo-Japanese war and Franco-Prussian War neither of which applied to reality. It was written by a guy who had no idea how large scale warfare with new weapons is going to work. It was derailed in the first weeks of combat on both eastern and western front.

> germany basically ran schlieffen plan 2.
France and Soviet union were separated politically before war. Schlieffen plan expects you to be at war with both and just move fast enough.
In WW2 they actually fought two 1vs1s (+anglo) and had plentiful time to work with. Schlieffen plan would still shit itself if Jerries got into war with both USSR and France in 1939.

>>1873352
Are those numbers accurate?
I knew the Napolionic wars were brutal, but Christ on a bike that's a lot of casualties

>>1873613
Prussia was allied with Russia since Napoleonic times up until Wilhelm. They had to choose between Austria and Russia because of their squabbles for the Balkans and the idiots chose Austria.

>>1872642
It has never been most powerful. 1871-1918 second power after Britain.

>>1873876
This is /his/
Go be an uneducated normie who believe in propaganda memes somewhere else

Britain was a paper tiger that held no power outside of the third world shitholes it owned, and they were especially irrelevant in Europe
Crimean War and WW1 proved it more than enough

I'M SO FUCKING SICK OF THESE ANTI-GERMANY THREADS
FUCK OFF

>>1872653
This desu, senpai.

Insidiousness. Pettiness. Presumptuousness. Cowardice.

File: 1467134243161.jpg (26KB, 477x308px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 477x308px

>>1872653
this. how Wilhelm was that retarded to fuck up their relations with Russia is beyond me

>>1874500
https://youtu.be/4ztOV2wrrkY

>>1872642
Kaiser Bill, that's why. Stupid fucking git should've stayed chill with Russia

File: 8b6.png (287KB, 680x928px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 680x928px

>>1872642
Alsace-Lorraine

>>1874480
Fuck off kaiser/wehrboo

File: husaria.jpg (300KB, 1024x729px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x729px

>>1872741
>So it is a crime to speak your own language, which you imbibed with your mother’s milk; so it is a crime to belong to a people, into which you were born!

>Truly, it is about time for the Polish people to shake off its lifelessness, to express its indignation, to rise and fight against Germanization. In which way this fight shall be led, in which way the defense of Polish nationality will be achieved most effectively – these are questions which it pays to consider seriously.

>Oppress polish, and many other nationalities
>They rise up against the government

"It's the jews! :DDDD"

Dumb kraut worshipers deserves to die.

>Have the most powerful country in Europe
Nope, this one was Urss and Warsaw pact.

>>Lose it all
Agree. Commies are retard and this is tradition. Just see the last murican presidents. (Bush, Obama and now Trump/Wall Street Granny)

>>1874553
Hey, the empire was nice, the problem was emperor.

>>1874480
We have many anti-urss thread yesterday.

>>1874574
Source:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/nationality/chap1.html

>>1874459
And yet we still won the war :)

>>1874585
>Commies are retard and this is tradition. Just see the last murican presidents. (Bush, Obama and now Trump/Wall Street Granny)
>Bush, Obama, Trump, Hillary
>communist
Are you suffering from autism, my friend? :^)

File: 1476378768797.jpg (72KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x960px

>>1872718
>Comparing the succesors of the Roman Empire to a bunch of snownigger barbarians.
Man, Spain from XV to XVIII was god chosen people.

>>1874600
The tradition is lose everything. Also, george bush was market socialist.

>>1873546
This. All of you faggots are arguing for nothing.

File: tumblr_nwt5hsU7hF1rugrt1o1_1280.jpg (407KB, 1280x1707px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1280x1707px

>>1874609
""""Lol"""

>>1874612
>market socialist
>Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy.
Don't remember that happening in 2000's.

>>1874627
Thanks for the (((you))) but since Byzantium fell at 1453, the succesor of Rome(and the titles) came to Spain, moreover since we discovered America.

>>1874642
Keep handeling those spooks if it let's you sleep tight.
If anything the jews are chosen. God doesn't jump from one people to the next.

>>1874628
>>Market socialism is a type [...]market economy.
Like ties gov with blackwater.

>>1874599
Yes, while being carried by France until 1917 and by the US in 1918
Such a superpower...

>>1874642
explain why it would fall to Spain?

>>1874655
>do trade embargo agaisnt the germany
>not enough potatos
>JEWS

>>1872642
>Have the most powerful country in Europe
No.

>Lose it all
Yes.

>Why the fuck did that happen?
Because they weren't the most powerful country in Europe.

Let's see, let's break it down...
It did not have an aircraft, naval or armaments industry that could rival Britain.

It was bordered by enemies on two, potentially even three fronts.

It's access to sea was easily blockaded.

It had less automobiles per person than both France and Britain individually.

In what way were they the most powerful country in europe?

>>1874656
The then heir to the Byzantine empire sold his title to the king of Spain.

If I'm not mistaken he did this after he sold it to some French nobleman. Typical Greek that he was.

>>1874599
Last time I checked, Germany is currently dominating Europe while the "British Empire" will probably lose Scotland within 50 years.

>>1874677
You mean 10 years

>>1874459
What is this meme? Britain was the only entirely professional army at the start of the war and contributed a lots to the war.

>>1875007
>Britain was the only entirely professional army at the start of the war

At the expense of numbers (which really mattered)
Britain didnt send troops to the Western Front in significant numbers until the Somme, which means that France basically single-handedly carried the Western Front until late 1916

At the First Marne (most decisive battle on the Western front), the British had around 20,000 troops while France and Germany both deployed over a million troops

>>1874459
>uneducated normie who believes in propaganda memes

I feel like he's right at home here desu

>>1875021
That isn't the Battle of Amiens. The British and French were equally split in that.

>>1874459
You sound like the uneducated one here. Laughable anti-British nonsense.

>>1874677
Last time I checked, Germany is Sweden tier and not even worth saving now. It's all well and good having a decent economy when your people have to suffer the consequences of the waves of nig nogs, Merkel's dementia and immigrant rapes.

The dumb Krauts can't even meet the 2% military spend for NATO, they just let their jets rust away in hangars and cross their fingers that Russia doesn't fuck them into a coma.

>>1875057
Yeah, the French still covered most of the Western Front during the Somme, but still the British committed a lot of men to that battle (in the hundreds thousands), for the first time in the war

>>1875021
Actually I read that the British army at its peak was 8 millions soldiers, making it the biggest army of WWI. However only half of it was on the western front and not before 1916

>>1875067
M E M E
E
M
E

File: 1476868244746gd.png (61KB, 709x505px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 709x505px

>>1875211
>making it the biggest army of WWI

Rolf
Here are the total numbers for the entire war for every country (with France and Britain having the detail of origin place in the table)

>>1875231
Thanks for the precision. We tend to forget Russia, and yeah I forgot to say biggest in the allies. Germany is bigger anyway

>>1875231
Is this supposed to prove Britain was irrelevant in the war? It looks they contributed a lot and suffered many casualties.

>>1875477
>Is this supposed to prove Britain was irrelevant in the war?

Hmmm, no?
It's supposed to show that:

1. Britain didnt have the biggest army
2. Only half of the British army was British

>>1875546
The vast majority of the troops from the Dominions were 1st or 2nd generation British immigrants. Those numbers on the left are bullshit but even then 1.8 million isn't "half" of 5.5 million.

>>1873820
>>1874513
The eternal anglo would've never allowed that to happen, a German-Russian alliance that could dominate Europe and allow them to challenge the British control of the seas was one of Britain's worst fears.

>>1875605
Britain was weak as shit and couldn't do anything in Europe alone
They'd have needed France to even hope countering a German-Russian alliance, and there's no way France would have agreed challenging such a powerful alliance with only weak ass Britbongs as support

>>1875605
Besides the shitposting about the eternal anglo, this is actually true. The Germans chose the Austrians over the Russians because they worried about pissing off the Brits. They ended up pissing them off anyway, of course.

>>1875546
No one said Britain had the biggest army? Why would it have a bigger army than France? Britain historically has had a smaller but well trained army due to being an island. France has historically had conscription because it can be invaded by multiple land armies due to the fact it isn't surrounded by water.

>>1874670
>In what way were they the most powerful country in europe?
Only the British Empire could rival them and no single European country could have beaten them.

>>1875617
>No one said Britain had the biggest army?
>>1875211
Read the thread before you post

>>1875617
>No one said Britain had the biggest army?

Look at the post the post you're replying to was adressed to

>>1875623
Wikis says the British empire's military was larger than Frances's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

>>1875632
It was larger at the very end of the war. It took them a fuckload of time to get there though due to having a professional army.

>>1875632
And
The post you got butthurt about (>>1875231) didnt deny it
If anything it point it out with the pic
The only statement that was denied is the one that Britain had the biggest army in WW1
Damn you're dumb...

>>1875614
>eternal anglo
>shitposting
>implying it's not true

>>1875632
Okay? But that is still far from the biggest army of the war (which is Germany, followed by Russia)

>>1875643
So you're wrong. You made a wrong statement and your next post should be a reply to this post saying.

"Sorry, I am wrong"

>>1875623
>Read the thread before you post

I did and there was no precise info about the numbers in WWI before I posted, anon. Granted I should have reread the wiki article before but why the butthurt

>>1875649
Nevermind I thought you were answering to me. God I'm tired

>>1875647
What the fuck are you babbling on about? What statement did I make that was wrong?

>>1875666
That Britain was irrelevant in the first world war.

File: british military history.jpg (480KB, 1294x3932px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1294x3932px

>>1875672
Britain was basically irrelevant in most wars it fought
Tha Anglo-Zulu War being an exception

>>1875672
Not me you fucking sperg. All I said was that the claim that the UK had the biggest army was wrong

>>1875677
Then how did it win so much including WWI where it won the middle east, pacific and African front only needing help in the west from the french?

>>1875693
>pacific and African front

Literal memes
Especially the Pacific one which basically didnt exist

>>1875705
Sorry I don't think you understand war, the objective is to win, lose as few people as possible for as much land as possible.

File: IMG_2124.png (8KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 800x400px

>>1872642
I still don't get why Germany didn't try to align with the Brits. The Brits were ruled by a German dynasty, with Victoria being the grandmother of Wilhelm. Not to mention, the UK had been a rival of France for centuries. It would only have made sense for the UK to ally Germany, yet they didn't.

>>1875907
They did try and align with the Brits, in the 1890s. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland%E2%80%93Zanzibar_Treaty and Leo von Caprivi's Neuer Kurs (New Course). The bongs weren't interested in getting into an entangling alliance on the continent

>>1874671
>Having to buy the title from a crumbling empire
Yeah, totally the successor to Rome!

>>1875915
Could have still kept the Brits out if they didn't insist on going through Belgium without the agreement of the Belgians.

>>1875940
But then there was no way they could defeat France and Russia. They would be better off just not chimping out on anyone in the first place.

>>1875907
Germany became too big and powerful after the unification in 1871, changing the power balance on the continent, and the eternal anglo's strategy is always to align itself against the strong player

File: 1473839949671.jpg (191KB, 681x475px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 681x475px

>>1875067
>Germany is Sweden tier
> waves of nig nogs
This is not even true for Sweden, stop the memeing, learn to read some actually news whose sources are not /pol/, their imagination or their farright buddy newsite, whose sources are also /pol/ or themselves.

You're most likely American (or sadly Anglo, as a lot of them also despise the truth), but I would not go around calling idiots from now on "America tier" because of one underage meme poster.

>>1875940
>implying the brits would have stayed out

See>>1875953

File: 2ad.jpg (130KB, 511x780px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 511x780px

>>1875907
>The Brits were ruled by a German dynasty, with Victoria being the grandmother of Wilhelm

Like it matters
England spent most of of the time during which they were ruled by French kings fighting against France

File: 1472934330853.jpg (204KB, 834x1188px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 834x1188px

>>1875621
I ask again;

In what way? The British far outproduced the Germans, they had a much better economy, they were much more self-sufficient than germans, they had a bigger navy, more natural resources and they were on an island as opposed to on two fronts.

In what way were the germans superior?

Jumped by everyone in europe who's Empires were only great because they were built off of shooting people who didn't have guns, whereas Germany came to the game after all the other Empires were built and was able to compete and rip colonies away from those shitty Empires on equal playing field.

Germany in WWI was the hero fighting a war of defense against a bunch of psychopaths. The psychopaths managed to turn Germany into one of them.

>>1876008
That's only true for England. France has been fighting in Europe for most of her history

>>1875986

Germans were fighting a war of survival, the British were fighting a war of expansion (trying to get in on what they assumed would be an easy win over Germany, and thus be able to lay claim to German colonies).

The British had better economy, but relied completely on the navy. Once off the sea, they weren't that good. And to beat Germany required a land war.

Germany could also cripple British trade, that the British required. Germany could build most of their shit in house, gathered from resources within Germany. The British had much less of this.

>>1876021

Not with the rise of colonialism. France was shooting at tribes who used spears. Colonial warfare was very different from war against an equally armed nation.

France started WWI by marching in bright blue uniforms doing fancy marching techniques expecting an old fashion war. The germans wrecked them until they stopped being stupid.

and even after France stopped being stupid, they kept being stupid, by sending wave after wave of men at Germany to their deaths just so that Germany wouldn't be able to focus completely on Russia.

France was the bad guy are WWI.

>>1876025
>Germans were fighting a war of survival
You don't really get to call your part in the war a fight for survival when you fight most of it on French and Belgian territory that you invaded.
>the British were fighting a war of expansion
Or, you know, helping out to bolster allies being invaded so that Germany would not further threaten Britain's naval dominance.
>The British had better economy, but relied completely on the navy.
Which, you know, accounted for the vast majority of world trade, which, as the Germans found out in 1917-1918, was really, really important.
>Germany could also cripple British trade, that the British required.
Yes, we know, Germany tried that in real life and it didn't pan out so well.

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1071x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1071x485px

>>1876008
>Germany in WWI was the hero fighting a war of defense against a bunch of psychopaths
>fighting a war of defense

Hmmmm

>>1876042
>France was shooting at tribes who used spears.
And, you know, the Prussians less than half a century ago. Which, mind you, was the last war Germany fought with a fellow European power.
>France started WWI by marching in bright blue uniforms doing fancy marching techniques expecting an old fashion war.
The Germans may not have had the bright blue uniforms, but they did have spiked helmets and the same fancy techniques under the assumption that it'd be the same war as the Franco-Prussian war.
>and even after France stopped being stupid, they kept being stupid, by sending wave after wave of men at Germany to their deaths
Or, you know, they kept sending wave after wave of men at Germany because Germany was occupying French Territory, and it kind of stops becoming French Territory if you stop trying to take it back?

>>1875986
Do you honestly think Britain could have beaten Germany alone? You must be delusional. They struggled to beat them when they were fighting on two fronts, supported by France and Russia.

>>1875947
Why didn't they just hold a line along the German-French border and focus on the Russians? They were able to hold a long trench line along Belgium AND the border for 4 years, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do that on a shorter line with fewer troops and just commit the main body of troops to Russia. Once Russia is finished, the entire German army can focus France and roll over them, Belgium or not.

File: hrerd.jpg (969KB, 2276x1260px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 2276x1260px

>>1876042
>Not with the rise of colonialism. France was shooting at tribes who used spears. Colonial warfare was very different from war against an equally armed nation.

He meant that just like Germany in WW1, France had fought European coalitions many times in history (pic related)
But you're right that 19th century colonial empires (be it Britain's or France's) were pretty pathetic

>>1876057
Because Germany
a) was not anticipating a devolution into trench warfare and
b) believed Russia, with its large reserve of manpower, to be the tougher enemy, and France to be the enemy that could and should be knocked out as quickly as possible.

>>1876045

>You don't really get to call your part in the war a fight for survival when you fight most of it on French and Belgian territory that you invaded.

Yes you do. Russia was going to invade Germany in a few years. everyone knew it. The Germans had to do something about it. The French allied with Russia to spite Germany because Germany defeated them recently. Literally the only reason France got involved was because they were hoping to destroy Germany along with the Russians so they could take German colonies overseas and gain German land for it's strategic value and resources.

>helping out to bolster allies being invaded so that Germany would not further threaten Britain's naval dominance.

How is this different than what I said? The UK wanted a piece of the German pie. They had no reason to join the war other than they thought it meant free colonies. Germany wasn't even trying to threaten the UK initially, and actually tried to suck up to the UK, and tried to rile up the historic rivalry between France and the UK. But France wasn't threatened by two Giant Empires on both sides of it. Germany was.

>as the Germans found out in 1917-1918, was really, really important.

again, not true. Germany bankrupted itself because it won a ton of land from Russia and France, and the new way of fighting wars meant that holding all that land was way more expensive than it was just a decade earlier. Britain required the navy. Germany did not. It did help Britain, sure, but it was not nearly as significantly as youre making it seem.

>Yes, we know, Germany tried that in real life and it didn't pan out so well.

Because the British, being part of the bad guys in this war, did shady shit like fly the flags of other countries on their ships, and joined in a war they had no business in other than greed.

File: Submarine_attack_(AWM_304949).jpg (111KB, 450x363px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 450x363px

>>1876025

>And to beat Germany required a land war.
Not true, in a war for attrition, Germany would loose. It did not have the resources to outlast Britain.

>Germany could also cripple British trade, that the British required. Germany could build most of their shit in house, gathered from resources within Germany.

The Germans had little to no iron ore, no oil, no copper, no tin and especially no rubber. All of these britain could import from overseas, but Germany could not because Britain controlled the seas.

This is completely wrong. The german fed their populace with pigs, which ate the same food as humans. The british fed their populace with lambs, which eat grass and provide wool for textile. British agriculture was far more mechanized than Germany's and productivity was much higher.

Much fuss is made about the U-Boats sinking shipping and true, this was a big concern. But fact of the matter is that much shipping still got through and U-Boat warfare was highly dependant on one thing; Code encryption. There is not a single code that the British did not crack. So it could never have tipped the war in Germany's favour.

>>1876047
Not the guy you're talking to but he's right. Germany was aiding their ally who had been the victim of a terrorist attack. Russia supported the terrorists and France supported Russia who were supporting the terrorists. Certainly, the move through Belgium wasn't the proper way to deal with things but it was France and Russia who pushed Germany in the position where they had to resort to unconventional strategies in the first place.

File: 1437906825998.jpg (50KB, 473x316px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 473x316px

>>1876055
Without a doubt, after the loss in North Africa and the Battle of Britain the game was up for the Germans.

>>1876042
>France was the bad guy are WWI.

Using bright uniforms and human waves tactics doesnt define who's the bad guys

Germany attacked four countries in a row (among which two were inoffensive little pieces of land) after Austria declared war on Serbia
France merely defended itself against German aggression

>>1876047

>Timelines are totally the only source needed for complex historical events.

also, Austria isn't Germany. Russia had no business invading Austria to "defend" Serbia. Russia had been encroaching on Germany and Austria-Hungary for decades, and everyone knew Russia was planning on taking Germany. Everyone. Russia didn't even fucking hide it. Germany's hand was forced by Russia and France.

>>1876057
Everyone planned offensively in WW1. The French, the Russians, the Austrians and the Germans. All of them believed that a lengthy war would be their ruin.

>>1876084
You must be American
Just because it's what your dumb country did after 9/11 doesnt mean that attacking an entire nation for the acts of a few individuals not affiliated to any government is justified

>>1876088
Are you literally retarded? We're talking about WW1.

And in WW2 Britain was in an even worse position.

>>1876050

>Or, you know, they kept sending wave after wave of men at Germany because Germany was occupying French Territory, and it kind of stops becoming French Territory if you stop trying to take it back?

If France didn't get involved between Germany and Russia, they wouldn't have lost land, would they? France declared war, and got the shit kicked out of them before they started digging trenches.

France asked for it. Sacrificing men because youre too stupid to mind your own business isn't a good thing.

>>1876102
If the local government supports terrorists or seems unwilling and able to flush them out on your own it's only right to show them how it's done.

>>1876080
>Russia was going to invade Germany in a few years. everyone knew it.
Which would be why Russia immediately rushed to deescalate the situation and ordered Serbia to accede to Austria-Hungary's ultimatum, right?
>The French allied with Russia to spite Germany because Germany defeated them recently.
This is true, but also because Germany took the French territories of Alsace-Lorraine.
>and gain German land for it's strategic value and resources.
To retake Alsace-Lorraine, and because the Germans demanded that France hand over its principal fortresses at Verdun and Toul (i.e. hand over land to guarantee Neutrality).
>How is this different than what I said? The UK wanted a piece of the German pie.
No, it wanted to make sure Germany didn't have the ability to take a piece of the British Pie.
>They had no reason to join the war other than they thought it meant free colonies.
So Germany leaping to Austria-Hungary's defense is okay, but Britain leaping to Belgium's defense isn't?
>Germany wasn't even trying to threaten the UK initially, and actually tried to suck up to the UK
Invading Belgium, a nation with close ties to the United Kingdom since its creation, was arguably the worst possible way to do so.
>Britain required the navy. Germany did not.
Germany requires a willing market, as all nations do, in order to survive economically, as does the United Kingdom, and the vast majority of that comes through the sea.
>Because the British, being part of the bad guys in this war, did shady shit like fly the flags of other countries on their ships, and joined in a war they had no business in other than greed.
Are you really implying the Germans didn't do shady shit too? (Read: Zimmerman Telegram)

File: Escaping_from_Prince_of_Wales.jpg (96KB, 800x591px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x591px

>>1876103

Well, in that case the germans are even more fucked.

>>1876108
>France declared war

Literal uneducated retard who was fed with meme history
Is it even worth to keep debating with him after that?
The timeline of WW1's outbreak is there >>1876047

Neither France nor Russia declared war on Germany
France didnt even jump to defend Russia after Germany declared war on them

File: France Declares War On Germany.png (9KB, 888x88px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 888x88px

>>1876108
>France declared war
Excuse me?

>>1876082

Then how did Germany last for 4 years, basically single-handedly (as Germany's allies were retarded and Germany had to basically take over for them)? How did Germany capture more land, win more battles, and survive when fighting against, and i say this literally, a majority of the world? France and the UK alone brought half the world against Germany. Add Russia, it should've been a sweep, right?

you are exaggerating the importance of the British navy in this. The British initial goal was to help completely occupy Germany. Germany's goal was not to be overrun by the Russians.

File: ww.png (16KB, 636x412px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 636x412px

>>1876108
>France declared war,

But that's wrong you fucking retard
Why do so many people believe that?

>>1876089

Right, but joining another invasion country (Russia) with the goal of wiping out a country completely does make you the bad guy.

The French thought that they and the Russians could knock out the Germans easily, and be able to split German territory and colonies, and make up for the previous war where France lost. France went to war out of pride and greed. Germany went to war for survival.

>>1876111

it was fucking WWI. Everything was terrorism. Stop thinking buzzwords matter outside of TV news.

>>1876116
Again: you must be delusional to think Britain could take on Germany alone.

>>1876129
So France
>joining another invasion country (Russia)
Which, mind you, didn't happen, the Germans declared war on France after the French rejected the demand for their most important fortresses (one of which would host the most pivotal battle of the Western Front)
>with the goal of wiping out a country
isn't okay

but Germany
>joining another invasion country (Austria-Hungary) with the goal of wiping out a country (Serbia)
is okay?

>>1876120
>>1876123
>>1876126

You're all retarded.

>Official statements are the only history there is!

France said they were going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany if Russia was going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany. Russia said it was going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany if Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia.

Oh, I'm sorry, did the funny guy in the magic hat not say it correctly enough for you to consider it a declaration? Germany wouldn't have touched anything west of it if France wasn't interfering with their bullshit.

Say what you will about the official statements, France's threats were declarations of war to any real person. You know, real people who don't live on timelines, and in the actual real world? those people.

>>1876143

Austria-Hungary wanted to bring Serbia into the Empire as a 3rd royal family, to join the Austrian royal family and Hungarian royal family. With the shooting of Ferdinand by a Serb, war was inevitable. You can't kill the 2nd in line of the royal family and expect nothing to happen.

>>1876149
>France said they were going to invade Austria-Hungary
Really? Austria-Hungary, the country it shares no borders whatsoever with?

Going to need a citation for this one.

>>1874670
But the Germans has overwhelming air superiority during the war. They had fewer planes, but their planes and pilots were much better. You're correct about the naval aspects. However the German army was far and away the best army in Europe. The naval blockade was the only thing keeping them from winning once Russia dropped out.

File: 1473063282789.gif (313KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 250x250px

>>1876149
>France said they were going to invade Austria-Hungary

>>1873488
>so much effort with a jewish propaganda pic
>post is ending with 88

All for nothing, m8.
All for nothing.
You got the Führer-Digits.

>>1876124
>>1876134

And I say you are naive to think otherwise. Germany has nothing in terms of natural resources and it's society is much less industrialized than Britain's. Germany might win the battle, but they will certainly lose the war.

File: keep pol in pol.jpg (99KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x900px

>>1872741

>>1876149
>France said they were going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany if Russia was going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany
Except they never said that
France and Russia were allied, but it wasnt certain if they'd help Russia or not in case of war since Russia hadnt supported them in the previous diplomatical crisis

>Russia said it was going to invade Austria-Hungary and Germany if Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia.
Nope, they said they would help Serbia against Austria
Germany wasn't mentioned, they involved themselves by their own will

>>1876102
> Not affiliated to any government

C'mon lad, the black hand was definitely supported by the Serbian government

>>1876227
But Germany would get any resources they needed from Austria our the Ottomans. Or anyone else willing to sell (and most would be). It doesn't matter which nation had a higher industrial capacity as long as both nations were capable of self-sufficiency. Germany would not lose to Britain alone. Germany most likely wouldn't beat Britain alone, but they 100% definitely would not lose.

>>1876227
WW1 ended the position of the British Empire as the lawmaker in international politics and handed that position over to the US. I don't see how a war which Britain has to handle alone could have any other consequence. One could argue that it would have a similarly devastating outcome to the German Empire, but the idea that Britain alone could do what Britain, France and Russia combined couldn't is ridiculous.

File: 1472934359636.jpg (133KB, 924x1129px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 924x1129px

>>1876310
>>1876324

>Germany would not lose to Britain alone. Germany most likely wouldn't beat Britain alone, but they 100% definitely would not lose.

A German defeat against Britain would be unavoidable since the process of war was much more taxing on German citizens than on British, with regards to it's limited industrial and agriculturual capacity and with it's inability to secure vital resources. Germany's will to fight would collapse much sooner than Britain's.

Allying with A-H, Romania and Italy joined the war against central powers just to steal A-H clay. Germany would have won ww2 just with Italy invading France instead

>>1876324
>WW1 ended the position of the British Empire as the lawmaker in international politics and handed that position over to the US.

How wrong can one be?
Britain had no influence in Europe before WW1, it was Germany, Russia and to a lesser extend France who dominated there
For Europe, France and to a lesser extend Britain became the "lawmaker" after WW1.

As for the rest of the world, it was Britain that could be considered the "lawmaker" before WW1 (although not as strongly as some retards believe) and they remained so after the war (though even weaker than before).
America wasn't deciding anything and their influence was limited to the countries surrounding them.

By the 30s they had the potential to become the maiin global power, but they didnt capitilize on it until WW2

>>1876333
Lad Britain would never be able to land an army on Germany. The war would be entirely naval outside of the colonies, and that just isn't enough for Germany to concede. In fact it would hardly be noticeable for the average citizen.

>>1876380
>Lad Britain would never be able to land an army on Germany

They could land, but the German police would arrest them
Reminder that until late 1916, the British army was so tiny that France basically carried the Western Front alone

>>1876364
WW1 ruined the Empire and set the stage for the US. This is a fact.

>>1874574
Polish Jews were not nationalist and they massively supported the Soviets every time they invaded Poland (1920, 1939 and 1944).

>>1876310
Okay, so let's pretend that you're completely right. Germany's war effort is somehow unhindered by the complete absence of maritime trade. What happens?

The Royal Navy blockades Germany. Germany, of course, would probably pull a tactical victory like Jutland at least once, but they still lack the strength to push out of their ports and they do jack shit.

Britain then takes all of its African colonies (As happened in our history), because there are only so many Germans and Askaris in German East Africa, and the Royal Navy is going to be blockading any attempt by Germany to reinforce its colonies, since it has the High Seas Fleet blockaded, controls the Suez canal and Gibraltar and can interdict any German departures via Malta. The Japanese would probably be easily encouraged by the Anglos to take Germany's pacific holdings as it did in real history.

So in the end we're at an impasse, except Germany has lost all its overseas colonies. Sure, Germany might not be completely defeated, but it sure is a defeat.

>>1876498

Pretty much this. There are two ways to win a war; by outlasting the other and by complete annihilation. This would be a case of the former.

>>1876498

In addition, Germany imported most of its steel from Sweden. That's another resource that could be blocked.

>>1872754
Its b8 m8

>A thread about Germany being the most powerful country in Europe
>Britshits chimp out and go full >muh empire
every single time

>>1872642
The Jewish-Anglo Empire demanded it.

>>1876739
When will Brit understand that at no point in history they were the most powerful country in Europe?
Ruling over a bunch of third world shitholes is one thing, ruling over Europe is different

File: 1432936863529.png (43KB, 971x551px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 971x551px

>>1876795
island mentality is a thing

File: 1444243671404.png (330KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 330x319px

>>1876823
Is there anything bigger than British delusion in this world?

>>1876823
>Another coutnry
>Germany: 4%
Who did they mean by this?

inb4 Israel

>>1872754
THE Ludendorff?

>>1876841
Italy

>>1877090
hue

>>1874459
German economics was worse economics of Britain - 1/3 of Earth. It could became biggest about 1930, but stupid agressive emperor didnt want to wait.
German army was strongest army of the world, no doubt. It could easy crush every other army. But dipomacy was failed.

File: Flag_dutch.jpg (5KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x168px

>>1875977
tfw everyone pretty much ignores you today but you used to be based