Was Versaille too harsh for Germans?

versailleS

t.autistic hon hon

>>1995836
> versailleS
What? There were two of THEM?

Not harsh enough. the fact that Germany was able to rearm in a mere 20 years shows how fucking weak it was. Wilson fucked everything up and France should of been allowed to dismantle Germany.
t. 3rd year History undergrad

File: Germany never had a resistance in its entire history.jpg (156KB, 657x583px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 657x583px

>>1995834
Less harsh than Post-WW2 Peace, that's for sure
And guess which one succeeded at preventing another chimp out?

>>1995839
Nah, just correcting the ortography.

>>1995834

Yeah, even the American president at the time felt bad about how much the Germans were cucked by that treaty.

>>1995846

Did we treat the Germans better or worse than the Japanese after WWII?

'Cuz Japan was way worse than Germany during the war, unless you believe the exaggerated "6 million jews holocausted" meme.

>>1995846
>Less harsh than Post-WW2 Peace

In terms of direct money transfers the post-WW2 settlement (there was no real peace treaty actually) was more advantagous to Germany.

>And guess which one succeeded at preventing another chimp out?

The new geopolitical environment made that unthinkable anyway. Even if Germany had been restored as a unified state in 1937 borders, the formation of firm military alliances armed with nukes in West and East made an attack impossible; which is also the reason why there was no big war between NATO and the Warsaw pact

>>1995862
>'Cuz Japan was way worse than Germany during the war, unless you believe the exaggerated "6 million jews holocausted" meme.
spot the retard

File: Kriegsziele_im_Westen.jpg (1MB, 3090x1958px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3090x1958px

>>1995834
>Germany remained a unified state
>most of Germany was left unoccupied and the occupied parts were eventually relinquished by the allies
>the leaders weren't imposed by the Allies and Germans were allowed to elect their own leaders
>Germany was allowed to keep many disputed territories: most of Upper Silesia, Masuria, southern Schleswig
>Germany was allowed to keep an army
>most of the initial reparations weren't even enforced and they were eventually forgotten
>Germany kept most of it's industry

Whaaa. The evil Versailles took our magical powers way. Allies and their tricknology be keeping us down.

Why did Austria gain so much crim Brest-Litovsk if they didn't contribute anything meaningful to the central powers? I mean the ottomans had gallipoli at least

>>1995834
Not nearly enough given, how they've begun to prepare for a an all-out conflict while everyone else, including the Soviet Union, was trying to avoid it.

>>1996100
>including the Soviet Union

>>1995992
That's just the land occupied by Austro-Hungarian troops, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk didn't grant any annexations to AH

>>1996100

The Soviet Union was actively preparing for war, they just weren't ready for a war against Germany when:

A) there are smaller, "easier" to conquer countries like Finland and Poland which they invaded first

B) Stalin had just purged the best minds in his military

They planned to invade Germany, then the rest of Europe, after it was all weakened by war and the Soviet army was ready. Instead, they got surprise invaded before they were ready. I don't think it's fair to say they were trying to avoid all-out conflict at all.

>>1995834

ANY punishments imposed on Germany would've been too harsh, considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1. However, Versailles was an atrocity and wasn't even possible for Germany to recover from.

Germans should've just fucking killed everyone.

Of course it was too harsh. The world blamed Germany for the war, when that wasn't the case at all. Germany was the scapegoat because they were the toughest to defeat.

>>1995862
>'Cuz Japan was way worse than Germany during the war, unless you believe the exaggerated "6 million jews holocausted" meme.
Japan wasn't doing an industrial genocide, right?

No, it was a rather weak treaty that wasn't even enforced fully. The Germans broke its stipulations numerous times with no consequences.

Germans were butthurt because they lost the war without having the Western allies set foot into their country, and then gobbled up the myth about the stab-in-the-back because it was too hard for them to accept they lost militarily.

>>1996168

>ANY punishments imposed on Germany would've been too harsh, considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1

That's not how it works when you lose a wa-

>Germans should've just fucking killed everyone.

oh

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1068x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1068x485px

>>1996168
>ANY punishments imposed on Germany would've been too harsh, considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1

t. brainwashed faggot
Ever tried to make your own research about the oubreak of WW1 instead to listening to what they told you on Reddit?

>>1996174

Nope, just good ol' fashioned regular genocide. I'd rather be gassed than raped and tortured to death, or set on fire, or gunned down in a line and left to bleed out.

>>1995901
>In terms of direct money transfers the post-WW2 settlement (there was no real peace treaty actually) was more advantagous to Germany.
Except no, you are completely wrong. Germany received a ton of foreign aid in the interwars era and practically didn't pay reparations.

File: treatyofversailles.jpg (37KB, 238x400px)

37KB, 238x400px

>>1996168
>wasn't even possible for Germany to recover from
>they recovered
I don't understand

>>1995845
This. Basically everyone of the other Central Powers got a harsher treaty than Germany did

>>1995834
Honestly it could be too harsh or not harsh enough but the truth is that it was an uneffective treaty. Also for everyone on the harsh camp realize to get what you want would require starting up the war again which would bexpect political suicide and almost impossible.

>>1995862
Spot the /pol/ user
And its 11million not 6 you nazi peice of shit

File: ww1.jpg (121KB, 1253x338px)

121KB, 1253x338px

>>1996224

Wow are you really that thick?

>>1998850
read a book, kid

>>1996224
idiot

>>199893
I think you are the one who must read a book you inbread peice of shit
My grandfather was a holocaust survivor nazi scum are you going to say he was making it up?

>>1996142
>They planned to invade Germany, then the rest of Europe, after it was all weakened by war and the Soviet army was ready
[citation needed]

>>1995845
>implying it would have changed anything
Germany wasn't officially allowed to rearm the way they did, and yet they still did so. Nobody was willing to tell them to stop because people were still too shaken from WW1. Even if you made Versailles twice as harsh it would have had no effect with nobody to enforce it.

Also
>should of

File: 1479788007781.png (114KB, 1457x887px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1457x887px

>>1996224
To me it looks more like Germany tried everything in their power to avoid WW1.

>>1995834
NOPE, nor was it enforced harsh enough, honestly the HRE should have been remade as a unified Germany is a dangerous Germany, especially when you keep Austria out of it

>>1999047
>everything in their power
How about letting Russia duke it out, and make deal with France that if either of you intervenes the other can as well

>>1998914
>all those neutrality declarations from irrelevant countries somehow negate the fact Germany attacked four countries in a row

Are you a literal retard so easily fooled by appearances?
The other pic is the same timeline but with only mattering actions on it

File: 1480075047072.png (131KB, 1457x887px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1457x887px

>>1999047
To me it doesnt

File: 1369789473575.jpg (32KB, 292x330px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 292x330px

>>1996168
>considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1
> equally at fault

>>1999047

read the ultimatum sent to serbistan before you spew shit, fucking mongrel

>>1995834
>austro-hungary owned crimea

Time to reconquer it, its our right and duty!

>>1995862
Its six million PEOPLE, not just jews. Gypsies, homosexuals, retards, and prisoners of war.
All of them were forced into labor camps, and practically slave labor, something Germany also did in WWI. Many of them were supposed to be killed when the camps were abandoned due to the war going bad, and most were indeed killed.

File: 1479290809220.png (244KB, 383x503px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 383x503px

>>1999473
>Its six million PEOPLE, not just jews. Gypsies, homosexuals, retards, and prisoners of war.

No it was around 6 million Jews, on top of that, though, were 2-3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million Polish civilians, and another 1-2 million assorted undesirables (other slavs, gypsies, freemasons, liberals, gays, disabled people etc)

The total death toll was around 11 - 13 million people, though exact numbers are difficult due to the destruction of records, overlapping categories, unrecorded deaths etc.

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

File: the eight crimes of white people.png (194KB, 524x712px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 524x712px

>>1999473
>>1999555
You forgot the otherkins

>>1999473
Its six million jews and an additional five million others

File: 1473277980381.jpg (115KB, 678x708px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 678x708px

>>1999569
>Crimes of the white race
>White Race
>Germans

The main issue was the feeling of guilt. Germany had no guilt after WW1. After WW2, which was unambiguously their fault--for fuck's sake people were giving them free bits of other countries, Europe was THAT dedicated to peace, and Germany still fucked up--Germans were forced to do actual soul searching. It was basically "wait, are WE the baddies" on a national level.

File: 1451672324703.gif (49KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 200x200px

>>1999473
Good

>>1996142

>They planned to invade Germany, then the rest of Europe, after it was all weakened by war and the Soviet army was ready. Instead, they got surprise invaded before they were ready

Any sources to support that claim?And before you decide to mention Suvorov, just keep in mind that he is a notorious revisionist who mainly adheres to post Cold-War hysteria.

>>1996168
Are you out of your mind? Every other Central Power was punished harsher than Germany was, especially Austro-Hungary.

>>1998850
>11 million

Youre thinking of communism anon

File: Harsh.jpg (363KB, 681x1733px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 681x1733px

>>1995834

>>1995834
Yes.

>>1996170
>>1996168
>>1997208
>>1995849
t. butthurt German shills

>>1999047
>implying the ultimatum to Serbia wasn't designed to be completely unacceptable
>implying the Serbian response wasn't completely reasonable, going way farther than the Austrians expected, even agreeing to demands like censoring anti-Hapsburg publications that would have required an amendment to the Serbian constitution, only rejecting one demand that would have turned Serbia into an Austrian puppet state, and even Wilhelm said it removed all cause for war
>implying Germany just asked for French neutrality, and didn't demand they turn over several fortresses as well
>implying France didn't pull its troops back from the frontier to signal to Germany its peaceful intentions
>implying Germany didn't care because they wanted a war because they were worried about Russia's military reform program and figured they could only win if they attacked before it was completed

Read some post-60s historiography instead of parroting what you learned in high school faggot

>>1996224
>that edit
Every time

File: ww.png (16KB, 636x412px)

16KB, 636x412px

>>2000518
Ther's no edit though
He just removed the irrelevant "x declares neutrality" between German war declarations

Here's the timeline from another website

>>2000577
epic

File: wws.png (35KB, 703x555px)

35KB, 703x555px

>>2000582
Stay mad, naziboo

>>1995834
Depends. The allies decided it would be best to curbstomp Germany until it was no longer powerful. This was intended to keep peace but failed, it caused rising nationalisn and the second wirkd war. So if you want to take that route, you would have to be even harsher.


From keeping peace, I think it would have been better to have a light treaty. Make Germany give back Aslace-Lorraine, pay some moderate repriations, occupy it for a few years, and throw something in to calm down the alliance system and the balkans. Perhaps an independent Yugoslavia.


From what's really fair, Germany tried to avoid the war. France and Russia really did seem to want one, given their early actions. The alliance system was bound to cause something, and I put most of the blame on Austria-Hungary, Serbia, France, abd Russia. Germany and the U.K were the only ones trying to avoid it. So I would see giving Serbia some land and repreations as the fairest treaty.

>>2000845
>From what's really fair, Germany tried to avoid the war. France and Russia really did seem to want one, given their early actions

You're a pathetic revisionist cretin
Look at the timeline of the outbreak instead of spiting nonsense

File: 1411555191091.png (77KB, 294x413px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 294x413px

>>2000845
>From what's really fair, Germany tried to avoid the war
>and I put most of the blame on Austria-Hungary, Serbia, France, abd Russia. Germany and the U.K were the only ones trying to avoid it.

Do you live in a parallel dimension by any chance?

>>2000845
>Germany tried to avoid the war. France and Russia really did seem to want one

Kys

>germany shouldn't have been forced to pay reparations
given they came and invaded a neutral country, then systematically dismantled its entire industrial base I'd say at the very least paying back all the damage done to that country would have been a guaranteed requirement

which is something the germans actually refused to do even with versailles

>>1995834
If Europe had followed our plan nazism would never had happened.

>>2000453
How is saying that Germany got a better treaty than the other Central Powers shilling what are you talking about

>>2001134
My point is you're likely Germans.

hey /his/, would you rather:
>have Germany pay massive reparations to the point you're rich for like 200 years while Germany will be in a state of poverty for 200 years, but still exists.
or
>Exterminate every single German and erase their existence, Germany become just one giant no-go zone owned by no one, but you get no reparations for damages the Germans caused

File: 1456176165656.jpg (83KB, 946x472px)

83KB, 946x472px

>>2000845
>Depends. The allies decided it would be best to curbstomp Germany until it was no longer powerful.
France did. Britain didn't want France to be the only continental superpower. America wanted a strong trading partner in Germany.

Versailles was barely a slap on the hand of a still extremely potentially powerful, but pissed off, giant.

>From what's really fair, Germany tried to avoid the war. France and Russia really did seem to want one, given their early actions. The alliance system was bound to cause something

No, they didn't, they gave the Austrians carte blanche instead of convincing them to stay out of Serbia. They are the ones who decided to turn what could have been a localized conflict between Austro-Hungary and Russia into a complete world war.

>itt angry Anglo

>>2002510

Wut? Hitler killed more Russians than Jews.

>>2002216
I think you misunderstood my post. I was agreeing with the guy who said the treaty wasn't harsh enough.
If not I really have no idea what you think you mean.

>>1995845
No it was too harsh. The desperation that was caused by the terms of surrender was too much and could only lead to poverty, then extremism and then violence. After ww2 we took a much better approach by helping rehabilitate them economically so there was no reason for war and there was mutual benefit for all nations
t. not retarded enough to major in history

>>1999434
Germany was in the right to support Austria and Russia mobilised first.

>>1999449
Serbia was a terrorist rogue state.

>>2000487
See >>2002975.

>>1995834
Of course not, Germany should've been divided into pre-1871 states

>>2002975
>Serbia was a terrorist rogue state.

t. Von Hortzendorf

>>2002510
>they gave the Austrians carte blanche instead of convincing them to stay out of Serbia.
There was absolutely no way for Austria to stay out of Serbia. Austria was Great European power in a state of shock after having been publicly humiliated and the Balkans was their backyard. Why would they tolerate terrorist activity in their backyard?

In the same sense you could blame Russia for meddling at the Balkans and backing Serbian terrorists. Would Serbia have declined Austria if they weren't certain that Russia had their backs? Would Russia have backed Serbia if they weren't certain that France would have their backs?

In the end, it is fairly obvious that Russia used Serbian nationalist ambition and the pretence of pan-slavism to infiltrate the sphere of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria was in the right and Germany was in the right to back their only remaining ally on the continent.

>>2003002

>send the Serbs a laughably terrible ultimatum designed to be denied

Go read it, it's completely unreasonable and ridiculous.

Also, the fact that Serbia managed to raise such a large army compared to its population and run a highly successful guerrilla campaign which completely embarrassed the Austrians proves that the Serbians were willing to fight as hard as they could against the Austrians, with or without Russia.

>>2003014
That might as well be the case. I'm not saying Serbia was in the wrong to resist Austria, I'm saying Russia was in the wrong playing with matches near a powderkeg. It's not like Germany wanted to intervene against Serbia, they merely wanted Russia to stay neutral.

>>2003022

>Russia was wrong to prevent an ally from being steamrolled for no reason

>>2003027
Austria had all reason in the world since they had reason to suspect that the local government tolerated terrorist activity and was unwilling to root it out sufficiently.

Russia on the other hand had absolutely no business intervening at the Balkans which was within the sphere of Austria-Hungary.

>>2003038

>States have no interest in preventing other powers gain more power in their vicinity

Go read some Realism you pleb.

Also, the Serbs agreed to charge the Black Hand, they just didn't want the Austrians to prosecute them in Serbian territory. You can't just accept another country's judiciary; that's the first sign of annexation.

>>2003044
>You can't just accept another country's judiciary; that's the first sign of annexation.
If said country is incapable of doing things properly you'll have to give them a helping hand.

What do you think happened to Afghanistan after 9/11?

Why do you think are people killed with drones in Pakistan?

This was exactly the same situation. Except that Russia was backing the country that was harbouring terrorists - and France was aiding them in that. Russia had no business meddling at the Balkans, they played with fire and it blew up.

File: 1475533833090.png (245KB, 444x638px)

245KB, 444x638px

>>2003038
Again, Russia was only protecting a far weaker ally, and Austria could have sent reasonable demands instead of the insanity they sent to Belgrade.

How anyone can ignore that Austria was in the wrong for asking so much, or that Germany was in the wrong for essentially telling them "Do what the hell you want, we have your back" is mindblowing, double that after they invaded and raped neutral countries if it means blindsiding France.

>>2003073
>Again, Russia was only protecting a far weaker ally
Russia wasn't acting out of goodness of their heart. That sort of narrative does not work at that scale.

They were acting for two reasons:

- Russia had been humiliated due to their loss to Japan. They had to save face as a European Great Power and had to regain credibility.

- Russia had for a long time been trying to infiltrate the Balkans and this was a good opportunity. Pan-Slavic solidarity is just a nicer term for Russian Imperialism. They had no interest in an independent Serbia, they had an interest in expanding their sphere of influence and weakening Austria-Hungary in the process.

>>2003061

>If said country is incapable of doing things properly you'll have to give them a helping hand.

The level of revisionist shit you spew is infuriating. Austria was absolutely jockeying for war and the ultimatum was designed to be rejected. No sane country would allow another country to perform judiciary tasks within your borders. They even agreed to suppress anti-Austrian propaganda but no country could accept giving up judiciary powers.

>>2003094

>Russia had for a long time been trying to infiltrate the Balkans and this was a good opportunity. Pan-Slavic solidarity is just a nicer term for Russian Imperialism. They had no interest in an independent Serbia, they had an interest in expanding their sphere of influence and weakening Austria-Hungary in the process.

Wow you just explained every Great Power's motivations ever. Literally nothing wrong with this.

>>2003099
Of course not. I'm merely challenging the narrative of mean Austria bullying poor Serbia and kind Russia giving them a helping hand.

>>2003096
Austria needed to recover somehow from the humiliation they received. And the price would have been a humiliated Serbia. Certainly a small price to pay in comparison to with what actually happened.

>>2002803
>The desperation that was caused by the terms of surrender was too much and could only lead to poverty, then extremism and then violence.
t. Retard

Poverty (and what followed) happened because of something totally unrelated to Versailles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Effects

If you believe it was too harsh, then the nazi propaganda is still effect

>>2003061
>What do you think happened to Afghanistan after 9/11?

America didnt have the balls to invade Saudi Arabia and went for muslim countries the terrorist didnt come from instead

>>2003217
It's not only Nazi propaganda though, it's also a Western narrative meant to soothe tensions between Western Germany and the West.

>>2003113
Serbia and Russia had a good, mutually beneficial thing going on, Austria threatened to invade Serbia for BS reasons, Russia tells them to knock it off or else, Austria declares war on Serbia, and Germany proceeds to declare war on the entire world.

The Russians were not aggressors, they were merely protecting their ally (which, of course, has upsides for them, no one has ever denied that)

How anyone can see Austria and Germany as anything else than the aggressors here is completely beyond me.

>>2003257
>How anyone can see Austria and Germany as anything else than the aggressors here is completely beyond me.

Nazibooism is a hell of a drug

File: Peasantss.jpg (98KB, 736x963px)

98KB, 736x963px

>>2003257
France was aching for war in the long term after the humilation of getting alsace-lorraine taken and while the german highcommand saw that they werent a direct threat as their army was still made up of quiet inexerienced recruits yet them reaching out towards russia was a sign that germany wouldnt have been able to fend of an invasion in the coming decades.
Thus, it was seen as a preventive war, not just but for the time a somewhat reasonable decision as france had invaded germany in the past to claim the rhineland.
>THE WHOOOOLE WORLD
Are you american?
Euros had colonies who had to tag along, but a declaration of war towards the whole world is a retarded hollywood mem.

>>2003272
Wilhelms empire was not a an NS state.

>tl;dr the eternal anglo ruins europe once again

>>2003361
>France was aching for war in the long term after the humilation of getting alsace-lorraine taken

That's pure bullshit and you know it
Revanchism hadnt been a thing since the 1890s and pacifism was now the trend in 1910s France
France did all it could to avoid war with Germany during the crisis
-They withdrew their troops 10kms away from the borders to avoid provoking Germany
-They didn't react when a German patrol used this to raid a French village
-They didn't react when Germany declared war on Russia

Despite all that, Germany still declared war on them, and that's what resurrected the old revanchism

>>2003361
>Thus, it was seen as a preventive war, not just but for the time a somewhat reasonable decision as france had invaded germany in the past to claim the rhineland.

Is that a joke?
The only time France invaded the Rhineland was in 1795 because it was then an Austrian possession and Austria was using it as an advanced base to invade France

>>1995846
There was a difference though:
-World war 2 occupation led to a steady rebuilding of democractic structures
-Massive subsidies on infrastructure and nurishment was a help to the population in the occupied countries
-World war 2 saw the home front in Germany being completely destroyed, bringing the actual acceptance of loss in the non-fighting population up
-Fighting troops as well, as they weren't told about iminent victory up until the signing of the peace treaty
-More massive conflicts emerged making Germany an important, engaged member of both systems
- Economy boomed after World war 2 as it only slowly regained ground in the 20s immediately plumiting in 1929
-While boarders were redrawn, the main structure of countries remained the same after World war 2 unlike world war 1, which saw the emergence ob barely functioning states (countries that functioned somewhat well within their empires were now completely segregated from the market, were largely specialized in mostly non-profitable sectors like agriculture, not fully infrastructural connected etc.)
- The end of World war 2 brought a complete system change in land ownership in many countries, while after world war 1 many property issues of the pre-war period remained
- ethnical cleansing in most countries led to the decrease of tensions between minorites and majority ethnic groups unlike after World War I which saw a massive increase in ethnic minorities in countries that formerly didn't have those groups as "minorities" e.g. Hungarians in Romania, Germans in Poland etc.

So no, you can't compare the two, nor was post-World War II punishment harsher than it was before

>>2003443
>nor was post-World War II punishment harsher than it was before

Yes it was
Most of the arguments you gave are unrelated to the objective harsness of both peaces (like the delusion of German soldiers and pleb in late WW1 or the unrelated economic crisis that happened to happen in 1929)

>>1995834
yes
everyone should had already known that germans don't like to get humiliated too hard and their new main goal would become revenge

File: Humiliate me! Mache alles!.jpg (71KB, 591x501px)

71KB, 591x501px

>>2003486
>germans don't like to get humiliated too hard

On the contrary, they want to be humiliated hard (mache alles lol)
Versailles wasn't humiliating enough, which is why they chimped out again until they finally received what they wanted in 1945

>>2003461
Yes it is. While the destruction of Germany was harsher during the war and so was deindustrialization, it served the people to realize that they lost the war.
>Delusion
You gotta be kidding me.

Everyone that believe it was harsh is a german/anglo/american shill.

>>2003568
t. frog

File: assad sad.jpg (43KB, 460x345px)

43KB, 460x345px

>>2003398
>>2003410
>That's pure bullshit and you know it

true tbqh
I tried.

>>1995834
Not harsh enough, any concept of Germany should have been wiped off the map

>>2003022
>It's not like Germany wanted to intervene against Serbia, they merely wanted Russia to stay neutral.

>On May 12, 1914, the chief of Germany’s general staff, Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (above, right), met with his Austrian counterpart, Conrad von Hötzendorf (above, left), at a hotel in the Bohemian resort town of Karlsbad (now Karlovy Vary) in the Czech Republic. Over tea the generals discussed the tense international situation, the increasing likelihood of conflict, and their plans in case war should war break out.
>In light of Russia’s plans for military expansion, Moltke emphasized that the balance of forces in Europe would soon begin tilting against Germany and Austria-Hungary, so if there was going to be a continental war, it needed to happen soon: “If we delay any longer, the chances of success will be diminished; as far as manpower is concerned we cannot enter into a competition with Russia.”
>A week after his meeting with Conrad, Moltke again gave voice to mounting anxiety about the shifting balance of power, telling German Foreign Minister Gottlieb von Jagow that “there was no alternative to waging a preventive war in order to defeat the enemy as long as we could still more or less pass the test.” Similarly in May 1914, Moltke’s deputy, General Georg von Waldersee, wrote that Germany had “no reason whatever to avoid” war and in fact a very good chance “to conduct a great European war quickly and victoriously.”
Hmm, and yet the greater portion of the German high command was pleading for Wilhelm II to escalate the Serbian crisis into a preventive war.

>>1995834
peace treaties after ww1 are insane

>>1999434
>>1999251
What do you want - germany committing sudoku ? Let's be realistic!

>>2005136
Wait until you see the WW2 ones then

>>2002977
I see no arguments in that post, just baseless assertions

>>1999047
>Russia advises Serbia not to accept the ultimatum

haha what

meanwhile, in the real world, Russia literally told the Serbs to accept it

>>1996168
>considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1
Look, I get the Serbian, French, and Russian parts of this argument are pretty contentious, but are you really fucking implying that Belgium was equally at fault as Germany, Austria-Hungary or even Russia for not literally allowing Germany to completely trample on their neutrality/sovereignty and march its armies right through their borders? Or that the United Kingdom was unjustified for intervening after Germany had declared war on two of its allies and invaded the neutral nation half of Europe had agreed to keep Neutral?

>>2000845
>From what's really fair, Germany tried to avoid the war. France and Russia really did seem to want one, given their early actions.
what the fuck
are you retarded
is this what /his/ has to offer
0/10 effort bait or outright stupidity

>>1996168
>considering all sides were equally at fault for WW1. However, Versailles was an atrocity and wasn't even possible for Germany to recover from.
ebin :D

>>2005828
>French
I see the arguments for Serbia and Russia, but how was the French role contentious? They did basically everything they could to maintain peace see >>2003398

File: GermanyVerdunToulDemand.png (135KB, 292x526px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 292x526px

>>2005849
I actually agree that France was not at fault, but I didn't want to get sidelined into another argument that somehow France wanted revenge etc. etc. when the most ridiculous statement made was that Belgium was at fault for starting World War I.

>>2005828
If you consider that France (which got involved only because war was declared on them) is more at fault than Britain (which got involved to protect in irrelevant non-country), you have no idea of what you're talking about

>>2005863
>Britain (which got involved to protect in irrelevant non-country)
And, you know, the two other members of the Entente. Britain intervened well after Germany had declared on practically all its allies and blatantly violated a treaty to with it was a signatory.

Also see >>2005857, I don't personally believe France was at fault either.

>>2003257
>Serbia and Russia had a good, mutually beneficial thing going on
Russia was not in the place to have a good thing going with a state within Austria-Hungary's imperial sphere of influence. It was a direct challenge at a time when shit hit the fan there. And Germany was also twitchy as hell being put in check with France. Not really the best idea to be playing with fire in such a situation.

>Austria threatened to invade Serbia for BS reasons
The reasons were perfectly legitimate. Serbia was harbouring terrorists who just murdered the Austrian heir to the throne.

>Russia tells them to knock it off or else, Austria declares war on Serbia, and Germany proceeds to declare war on the entire world.
Russia is not in the position to tell anyone what they do in their own backyard. And Germany did not declare war on the entire world - Germany wanted to Russia to stay out of it. Russia refused to do so. Then Germany, after Russia refused to stay out of it, wanted at least France to stay out of it. But France also refused to do so. Now, what are they supposed to do? Let themselves get publicly humiliated? Things don't work like that. Both Austria and Germany were willing to go to war over this perceived injustice.

>The Russians were not aggressors, they were merely protecting their ally (which, of course, has upsides for them, no one has ever denied that)
Austria was attacked by Serbian terrorists - they killed their heir to the throne - and from their perspective the Serbian government was in on it. And Germany was having the back of their ally that was so terribly and cowardly struck. The same kind of narrative also works on the other side.

>>2005991
>Then Germany, after Russia refused to stay out of it, wanted at least France to stay out of it. But France also refused to do so.

Germany asked France to literally hand them out their Eastern cities to "prove" they would be neutral, see >>2005857
That's not acceptable
Fact is that France overestimated Germany and absolutly didnt want war with them
Even after Germany attacked Russia, France didnt react
Had Germany not attacked them directly, they most definitly would have stayed out of the conflict

>>1998934
6 million jews. 5 million additional groups of people or political enemies.

>>2005991
>Russia was not in the place to have a good thing going with a state within Austria-Hungary's imperial sphere of influence.
You don't get to invent spheres of influence just because it suits you.

>The reasons were perfectly legitimate. Serbia was harbouring terrorists who just murdered the Austrian heir to the throne.
And Serbia had agreed to Austria-Hungary's demands to to immediately remove any government officials that Austria-Hungary named as complicit, immediately dissolve the black hand, and to arrest all officials named by the Austro-Hungarians as being responsible. The only thing they refused to do was to have Austro-Hungarians literally running Serbian judicial proceedings.
>Russia is not in the position to tell anyone what they do in their own backyard.
I don't remember any diplomatic principle alleging that it is unacceptable to do so.
>Then Germany, after Russia refused to stay out of it, wanted at least France to stay out of it. But France also refused to do so.
The very opposite. France practically begged the Russians not to incite war further until the Germans literally demanded that France hand over its two most significant fortress cities just to show they were neutral. Now, what were they supposed to do? Let themselves get publicly humiliated?

>Things don't work like that.
I really like how you have the gall to say that "things don't work like that" when you have invented a principle of an "Imperial Sphere of Influence" that extended over non-consenting nations.

>Austria was attacked by Serbian terrorists - they killed their heir to the throne - and from their perspective the Serbian government was in on it.
ANd the Serbians agreed to let Austria-Hungary do literally everything it demanded be done except literally let Austro-Hungarians run the Serbian judicial system.
>And Germany was having the back of their ally that was so terribly and cowardly struck.
I'm not sure how cowardly it is when you were the one who declared war.

>>2006012
>Fact is that France overestimated Germany and absolutly didnt want war with them
France was right in that because without British intervention Germany would have beaten both France and Russia. If anyone overestimated someone it was Germany - who were actually deadly afraid of the two-fronts war - afraid enough to do a foolish thing like marching through Belgium.

>Had Germany not attacked them directly, they most definitly would have stayed out of the conflict
There is absolutely no evidence for that. France had offensive military planning like all other continental nations. They didn't declare themselves neutral and they mobilised their armies.

>>2006039
>afraid enough to do a foolish thing like marching through Belgium.

Belgium was a pretext, you naive mong
Britain, had been part of an alliance with France and Russia since 1904

>>2005991
>a state within Austria-Hungary's imperial sphere of influence
Kek, according to whom?

>Serbia was harbouring terrorists who just murdered the Austrian heir to the throne
Some people in the Serbian state had assisted them, but not the actual government. They had tried to assassinate the Prince-Regent of Serbia too. Also, the Serbs agreed to hand over all people who had been involved in the assassination to A-H, and plenty of other things as well. But A-H (and Germany) wanted war no matter what, even though they knew it would result in a world war, because they were worried about Russia's military reforms

>Russia is not in the position to tell anyone what they do in their own backyard
Another sovereign state is not "their own backyard"

>Russia is not in the position to tell anyone what they do in their own backyard
No they didn't, they wanted to hit them before they finished their reforms in 1917. See >>2004780

>France also refused to do so
Lies, they refused to hand over fortresses to Germany and repudiate their defensive alliance with Russia, they never said they were going to enter the war.

>Now, what are they supposed to do? Let themselves get publicly humiliated? Things don't work like that.
But your whole argument is premised on the idea Russia should have let themselves get publicly humiliated (for the second time too, after the annexation of Bosnia)

>Austria was attacked by Serbian terrorists - they killed their heir to the throne - and from their perspective the Serbian government was in on it
Nobody gave a shit about Franz Ferdinand, least of all the Austrian government who was glad to see him gone. It was just a pretext for starting a war when they thought they could still win.

>>2006034
>You don't get to invent spheres of influence just because it suits you.
I don't invent spheres of influence. The Balkans was the backyard of Austria-Hungary.

>The only thing they refused to do was to have Austro-Hungarians literally running Serbian judicial proceedings.
Maybe they shouldn't have done that.

>I don't remember any diplomatic principle alleging that it is unacceptable to do so.
In hindsight it wasn't a very good idea, was it?

>France practically begged the Russians not to incite war further
Poincaré essentially gave Russia a carte blanche of their own.

>"Imperial Sphere of Influence" that extended over non-consenting nations.
The vast majority of imperial spheres of influence throughout history have consisted of non-consenting nations.

>I'm not sure how cowardly it is when you were the one who declared war.
I'm talking about the assassination and I'm using the words to describe what has been perceived on the side of the central powers.

>>2006039
>France was right in that because without British intervention Germany would have beaten both France and Russia

Probably, but frogs overestimated Germans to the point of thinking it would be 1870 all over again, when in fact the French managed to stop the German advance by themselves and hold basically alone on the Western front until Britain really got in the war by late 1916

I think France would have lost in 1917 if it wasn't for the British, but that's still far from the quick defeat everyone expected

>>2006039
They were under no obligation to declare themselves neutral, and mobilization can be defensive as well as offensive, it was due to the way the Schlieffen plan worked that Germany had to respond to their mobilization

>>2006047
The British leadership was siding with France and Russia - the people not so much. It took a whole lot of propaganda to sway them against the German side and the rape of Belgium provided that.

Whether Britain could have motivated military involvement without Germany marching through Belgium is questionable.

>>2006057
>I don't invent spheres of influence. The Balkans was the backyard of Austria-Hungary.
Source: your ass.

>Poincaré essentially gave Russia a carte blanche of their own.
Poincaré was not the leader of France, he was the ceremonial President at this time. The real leader, the Prime Minister did this:
>Upon arriving back in France, the French Premier René Viviani sent a message to St. Petersburg asking that "in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany the pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces."[180] French troops were ordered to pull back six miles (10 km) from the German frontier as a sign of France’s peaceful intentions.[180]

>>2006059
>frogs overestimated Germans to the point of thinking it would be 1870 all over again, when in fact the French managed to stop the German advance by themselves
Whether this was tactical brilliance or merely a consequence of the changed warfare conditions is questionable though - after all, all campaigns got stuck somewhere. France got stuck too in South Germany. So did Russia, Austria, Italy, ...

In the end: France had less people to sacrifice than Germany and the Tsarist army performed rather poorly. While France was far more competent than in 1870, I would have put my money on Germany.

It was the British naval blockade and the vast resources of the British Empire that made the difference.

>>2006079
>French troops were ordered to pull back six miles (10 km) from the German frontier as a sign of France’s peaceful intentions.[180]

And guess what peace-loving innocent German dindus did when this happened?
That:

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

>>1995845
t. Autistic edgelord

>>2006057
>I don't invent spheres of influence. The Balkans was the backyard of Austria-Hungary.
Y'know, there was an agreement to delineate spheres of influence between A-H and Russia in the Balkans in 1897. Guess who broke it? Austria, by annexing Bosnia in 1908.

>>1995834
Yes.

>>2003213
Are you literally retarded?

>>2006054
>Kek, according to whom?
According to how it was perceived by them.

>Some people in the Serbian state had assisted them, but not the actual government.
To which extent this was true in hindsight is less important than how it was perceived.

>Another sovereign state is not "their own backyard"
Again: this was a different time period. It was a time of colonial empires. It was before Wilson's 14 points.

>No they didn't, they wanted to hit them before they finished their reforms in 1917.
The military was not in charge of Germany. The Kaiser and the Chancellor were. Obviously generals think in terms of military strategy rather than diplomacy so it shouldn't be surprising for them to have certain views on the matter, but their opinions are not imperative.

>they never said they were going to enter the war.
If they don't declare themselves neutral and mobilise their armies it is to be expected.

>But your whole argument is premised on the idea Russia should have let themselves get publicly humiliated (for the second time too, after the annexation of Bosnia)
So you mean both sides had good reasons to act like they did rather than one side being the "bad guys"?

>Nobody gave a shit about Franz Ferdinand
This is factually untrue.

>It was just a pretext for starting a war when they thought they could still win.
No. Germany and Austria were not any more eager than France or Russia to go to war. They wouldn't give in either however and lose their face on a public stage.

>>2006116
Are you?
There was poverty all over the world because of a Wall Street spawned economical crisis, and shitty German apologist revisionists try to make us believe that unenforced Versailles reparations were the reason for it

>>2006057
>The Balkans was the backyard of Austria-Hungary.
And since when did proximity indicate a sphere of influence? So was it okay for Germany to invade the neutral nation of Belgium just because it was in Germany's "Backyard?"
>Maybe they shouldn't have done that.
Maybe Austria-Hungary shouldn't have issued demands clearly intended to be impossible.
>Poincaré essentially gave Russia a carte blanche of their own.
>With Poincaré's full approval Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas affirming that:
>in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.[20]

>The vast majority of imperial spheres of influence throughout history have consisted of non-consenting nations.
Backed by treaties, signed unwillingly or not. Serbia and Austria-Hungary had no such treaty in-place.

>>2006079
>Source: your ass.
It was geographically right next to them and thus rightfully considered the backyard of their Empire.

>Poincaré was not the leader of France, he was the ceremonial President at this time.
So? Moltke was not the leader of Germany, yet you see >>2004780 being brought as an argument for German ill intentions.

>>2006123
>According to how it was perceived by them.
So if people in the past think their actions are right, we can't ever criticize them? What nonsense logic.

>Again: this was a different time period. It was a time of colonial empires.
The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of sovereign states was accepted since 1648. Colonial empires are a different issue entirely, since they were not recognized as sovereign states. Serbia was, including by Austria

>The Kaiser and the Chancellor were
And they decided to listen to the military.

>So you mean both sides had good reasons to act like they did rather than one side being the "bad guys"?
I don't know where you pulled that from.

>This is factually untrue.
It isn't. The people in the Austrian government hated him because he married morganatically and because his anti-Hungarian politics were sure to lead to a crisis in the Empire.

>No. Germany and Austria were not any more eager than France or Russia to go to war.
False. Asserting it repeatedly without evidence doesn't make it true

>>2006133
>was it okay for Germany to invade the neutral nation of Belgium just because it was in Germany's "Backyard?"
If Belgium was harbouring terrorists, then it would be expected for Germany to do something about it because it factually is their backyard.

>Backed by treaties, signed unwillingly or not.
Treaties are pieces of paper. They don't affect the status quo - only military might does.

>>2006123
>According to how it was perceived by them.
"I feel like that area is in our sphere of influence and you're interfering" is not actually a legal basis under any legal convention to declare war, especially when you're invading that nation after it accepted your ultimatum.

>To which extent this was true in hindsight is less important than how it was perceived.
Serbia assented to virtually every unreasonable measure posed by Austria-Hungary to prove its innocence.

>Again: this was a different time period. It was a time of colonial empires.
Colonial empires are explicitly not in Europe. The concept of national sovereignty far predates Wilson's 14 points.
>If they don't declare themselves neutral and mobilise their armies it is to be expected.
France didn't issue its general mobilization until after Germany issued its ultimatum demanding Toul and Verdun on the 31st of July.
>So you mean both sides had good reasons to act like they did rather than one side being the "bad guys"?
One side did. The one that issued unreasonable demands, declared war anyway when they were accepted and then invaded a neutral nation just to get to another nation (that they had, mind you, also declared war on after they refused unreasonable demands) sure didn't have a good reason.

>No. Germany and Austria were not any more eager than France or Russia to go to war.
THe whole fucking thread proves you wrong.

>>2006159
>If Belgium was harbouring terrorists, then it would be expected for Germany to do something about it because it factually is their backyard.
No, it isn't, by any standard of diplomatic relations before or after Wilson's 14 points.

>Treaties are pieces of paper. They don't affect the status quo - only military might does.
>He unironically ascribes to the might-makes-right argument
This has to be bait, right?

>>2006138
>It was geographically right next to them and thus rightfully considered the backyard of their Empire.
That is not how it works.

>So? Moltke was not the leader of Germany, yet you see >>2004780 being brought as an argument for German ill intentions.
But the actual leaders of Germany opted to listen to Moltke and acted accordingly. Here is what the Chancellor said:
>n 7 July, Bethmann Hollweg told his aide and close friend Kurt Riezler that "action against Serbia can lead to a world war".[59] Bethmann Hollweg felt such a "leap in the dark" was justified by the international situation.[59] Bethmann Hollweg told Riezler that Germany was "completely paralysed" and that the "future belongs to Russia which is growing and growing, and is becoming an ever increasing nightmare to us".[59] Riezler went to write in his diary that Bethmann Hollweg painted a "devastating picture" with Russia building rail-roads in Congress Poland that allow Russia to mobilize faster once the Great Military Programme was finished in 1917,[60] and that an Austro-Serbian war would probably cause a world war, "which would lead to an overthrow of the existing order", but since the "existing order was lifeless and void of ideas", such a war could only be welcomed as a blessing to Germany.[60]

>>2006164
>France didn't issue its general mobilization until after Germany issued its ultimatum demanding Toul and Verdun on the 31st of July.

France's general mobilization was purely defensive and happened a few hours after German issued its own general mobilization
See timeline pic >>1999047 (on August 1)

>>2006176
Forgot to add this:

>On 16 July, Bethmann Hollweg told Count Roedern, the State Secretary for Alsace-Lorraine, that he couldn't care less about Serbia or alleged Serbian complicity in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.[72] All that mattered was that Austria attack Serbia that summer, to result in a win-win situation for Germany.[72] If Bethmann Hollweg's view was correct, an Austro-Serbian war would either cause a general war (which Bethmann Hollweg believed Germany would win) or cause the Triple Entente to break up.[72]

>>2006155
>So if people in the past think their actions are right, we can't ever criticize them?
We can't, but we should be careful when it comes to the moral dimension.

>Colonial empires are a different issue entirely, since they were not recognized as sovereign states. Serbia was, including by Austria
The problem here being that Serbia was a troublemaker and problem child operating in the vicinity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

>And they decided to listen to the military.
They didn't listen to the military out of random but they listened to the military within a certain context. Namely, Russian aggression that was backed by France.

>It isn't. The people in the Austrian government hated him because he married morganatically and because his anti-Hungarian politics were sure to lead to a crisis in the Empire.
The fact that some people in the government didn't like him does not mean that the assassination of an heir to the throne did not leave a huge impact.

>False. Asserting it repeatedly without evidence doesn't make it true
Without Russia infiltrating the Balkans during a national crisis in Austria and putting pressure on Germany by placing them in check with France, there would have been no WW1.

File: ahawahahw.gif (503KB, 225x225px)

503KB, 225x225px

>>2006159
>Treaties are pieces of paper. They don't affect the status quo - only military might does.
Holy shit. Are you actually legitimately ascribing to the chiffon de papier argument? That every other nation-state needs to ignore their treaty obligations as long as you have military might?

>>2006173
>No, it isn't, by any standard of diplomatic relations before or after Wilson's 14 points.
You might say it's not, but factually it is. If Belgium were harbouring terrorists and making trouble in the German vicinity then Germany would put them down through military force.

>This has to be bait, right?
This is how things are.

>>2006184
>We can't, but we should be careful when it comes to the moral dimension.
And all due care has been taken, especially given that Germany's actions clearly
>The problem here being that Serbia was a troublemaker and problem child operating in the vicinity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Doesn't make it okay to invade them when they've compromised much of their sovereignty just to meet the Austro-Hungarian's demands.
>Namely, Russian aggression that was backed by France.
There have been posts all through this thread explicitly stating how freaked out France was about the whole situation and how they didn't even mobilize until the Germans demanded that they cede territory.
>Without Russia infiltrating the Balkans during a national crisis in Austria and putting pressure on Germany by placing them in check with France
France didn't want to put anyone in check until Germany threw the chessboard at them.

>>2006189
>>2006173

They're also the same people who complain about the Versailles treaty.

The cognative dissonance is hilarious.

>>2006176
>That is not how it works.
That is exactly how it works.

>But the actual leaders of Germany opted to listen to Moltke
Under the premise of Russian aggression.

>>2006184
>The problem here being that Serbia was a troublemaker and problem child operating in the vicinity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
Some Serbs =/= Serbia and again, Serbia agreed to pretty much all their demands. Here is what Kaiser Wilhelm himself said of Serbia's response to the Austrian ultimatum: "a brilliant performance for a time-limit of only 48 hours. This is more than one could have expected! A great moral success for Vienna, but with it every reason for war drops away"

>Namely, Russian aggression that was backed by France.
You've utterly failed to demonstrate any """aggression""" on Russia's part.

>The fact that some people in the government didn't like him does not mean that the assassination of an heir to the throne did not leave a huge impact.
It certainly proves that his death was not the decisive factor motivating the actions of the actual policy-makers of the time.

>Without Russia infiltrating the Balkans during a national crisis in Austria
Austria and Russia had a workable arrangement in the Balkans from 1897, but it was Austria that broke it in 1908. Offering to defend a small country from the unjustified aggression of its bigger neighbor is not "infiltration".

>there would have been no WW1.
There would have been no WWI if Austria had accepted Serbia's very reasonable response to their ultimatum. There would have been no WWI if Germany had not given Austria a blank cheque. There would have been no WWI if Germany hadn't escalated the situation by making ridiculous demands of France and then invading them unprovoked, violating the neutrality of Belgium they themselves had recognized in the process.

>>2006201
Hitler chose to ignore Versailles at some point. Did the Versailles treaty do something about it? No, because it is but a piece of paper. Treaties only have meaning if they're backed by military might.

>This is how things are.
No, they aren't. If might makes right, then the ensuing beatdown the entente (and then the Allies) put onto Germany twice in order to fulfill their treaty obligations is enough military justification to support the idea that treaties aren't just pieces of paper.

>>2006209
And it turns out, the Belgian treaty was backed by military might, that of Britain, and Germany lost, so there you go. If Germany was too delusional to realize that invading Belgium would bring the UK into the war, it's their fault and no one else's

>>2006180
>France's general mobilization was purely defensive
Their military planning was offensive. Plan XVII was an offensive plan.

>>2006202
>That is exactly how it works.
The German Empire was geographically right next to the Russian Empire, thus Germany was Russia's legitimate sphere of influence?

>>2006217
What I mean by "defensive mobilization" is that the mobilization is in order to deter aggression and be ready in case of war, without any wish to prokove the war themselves
Doesnt mean in any way that the military plan once/if the war is launched has to be defensive action

>>2006207
>Some Serbs =/= Serbia
At this scale it doesn't matter whether it's some Serbs or all of them.

>Here is what Kaiser Wilhelm himself said of Serbia's response to the Austrian ultimatum: "a brilliant performance for a time-limit of only 48 hours. This is more than one could have expected! A great moral success for Vienna, but with it every reason for war drops away"
Yeah, and he added: "I would have never ordered a mobilisation in response."

But it wasn't his call to make.

>You've utterly failed to demonstrate any """aggression""" on Russia's part.
Infiltrating the Balkans. Supporting a rogue state.

>It certainly proves that his death was not the decisive factor motivating the actions of the actual policy-makers of the time.
The death was the catalyst.

>Offering to defend a small country from the unjustified aggression of its bigger neighbor is not "infiltration".
It is because it wasn't their fucking business what another great power does in its own backyard. Not to mention that Serbia was no small innocent country but a terrorist haven that was stirring up shit right next to Austria-Hungary.

>here would have been no WWI if Austria had accepted Serbia's very reasonable response to their ultimatum. There would have been no WWI if Germany had not given Austria a blank cheque. There would have been no WWI if Germany hadn't escalated the situation by making ridiculous demands of France and then invading them unprovoked, violating the neutrality of Belgium they themselves had recognized in the process.
And yet all of this is but a consequence of Russian meddling.

>>2006215
Britain paid a high price for that. It's more than questionable whether Belgian neutrality was worth it.

>>2006220
Germany was relevant to Russia, but since Germany was a Great Power too, it is not as easily influenced.

>>2006238
>At this scale it doesn't matter whether it's some Serbs or all of them.
It totally does matter whether it was just some random Serbs or the Serbian government. An Italian assassinated the Austrian Empress in 1898, but they didn't declare war on Italy at that time.

>But it wasn't his call to make.
Of course not, but it shows how unjustified the people who did make the call were given their own ally was behaving unreasonably.

>Infiltrating the Balkans. Supporting a rogue state.
No one recognized the Balkans as an exclusive preserve of Austria-Hungary. Even the Austrians themselves never claimed it was. You just invented this shit to justify their actions ex post facto.

>The death was the catalyst.
Yes, it was a pretext.

>a terrorist haven that was stirring up shit right next to Austria-Hungary
It wasn't though. If it was, prove it.

>>2006248
It turns out Serbia wasn't so easily influenced either, given that Austria's actions resulted in the justified loss of their empire.

>>2006238
>Infiltrating the Balkans
>Supporting a rogue state
>its own backyard
>Russian meddling

You keep repeating these things, without a single piece of evidence to substantiate them. Just admit you got BTFO

>>2006214
>support the idea that treaties aren't just pieces of paper
That's not how it works. I get that being on /his/ you're not exactly the kind of person who does a lot of logical thinking, but some treaties being backed by sufficient military might does not mean that all treaties are. The treaties that are backed by military might have meaning, those that aren't have not. And that's how it is.

>>2006256
Remind me again what happened to the Russian Empire. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all.

>>2006266
What kind of evidence am I supposed to present when what I'm saying IS evidence.

Are you denying that Serbia is located within the vicinity of Austria-Hungary and thus relevant to their national interest and security? Are you denying that there were terrorists in Serbia that have been making trouble, even going so far as to murder the Austrian heir to the throne? Are you denying that Russia was infiltrating the Balkans by declaring their support to Serbia - the state which harboured the terrorists that slew the Austrian heir to the throne?

I certainly hope not, because these are all facts.

>>2006280
>Are you denying that Serbia is located within the vicinity of Austria-Hungary and thus relevant to their national interest and security?
"relevant to their national interest and security" is a far cry from what you've been saying

>Are you denying that there were terrorists in Serbia that have been making trouble, even going so far as to murder the Austrian heir to the throne?
Big difference between this and Serbia being a rogue or terrorist state.

>Are you denying that Russia was infiltrating the Balkans by declaring their support to Serbia - the state which harboured the terrorists that slew the Austrian heir to the throne?
"infiltrating the Balkans" is just meaningless cant. And the Balkans are "within the vicinity of Russia and thus relevant to their national interest and security"

>harboured the terrorists
They didn't harbor them though. They agreed to turn them over to Austria, that is the exact opposite of harbouring.

Substantiate your claims that Serbia was a recognized Austrian sphere of influence, that it was a terrorist state, and that Russia supporting it was aggressive. The fact that you had to move the goalposts to a bunch of more easily defensible claims suggests to me you can't.

>>2006303
>"infiltrating the Balkans" is just meaningless cant. And the Balkans are "within the vicinity of Russia and thus relevant to their national interest and security"
Yes. The point is however that Austria-Hungary has been there first. They were weak and dying but not dead yet. And extending into that sphere was a provocation. And provoking them while they were in a national crisis was maybe not the best of ideas.

>They didn't harbor them though. They agreed to turn them over to Austria
That's not how it was perceived on the Austrian side.

>Substantiate your claims that Serbia was a recognized Austrian sphere of influence
I've already explained that. The Austro-Hungarian empire has factually lorded over the Balkans. The conflict didn't come from nowhere. Or why do you think did Serbian terrorists kill the Austrian Archduke in the first place? So clearly they recognised that Austria had ambitions in that direction.

>that it was a terrorist state
There were terrorists who accomplished quite the feat - killing the heir to the throne of a European great power.

>and that Russia supporting it was aggressive
Meddling within the sphere of influence of another Empire is an act of aggression. Under different circumstances it would have been something rather minor, but as I said - Austria was in a national crisis. This would have taken a bit more moderation and diplomatic finesse.

>>2006270
>I get that being on /his/ you're not exactly the kind of person who does a lot of logical thinking
And what free-thinking, logical corner of 4chan are you from. /pol/?
>but some treaties being backed by sufficient military might does not mean that all treaties are. The treaties that are backed by military might have meaning, those that aren't have not. And that's how it is.
A meaningless distinction in the 20th century (i.e. 1914), where treaties are honored by the vast majority of the international community and said military force. That's just the way it is, and Germany's attempts to defy that failed.

>>2006331
>The point is however that Austria-Hungary has been there first.
No, they weren't. It was the Ottomans that were there first, and the Russians that were trouncing them.
>I've already explained that. The Austro-Hungarian empire has factually lorded over the Balkans
>So clearly they recognised that Austria had ambitions in that direction.
Contradictory. If Austria factually lorded it over Serbia there would be no need for such "ambitions." Austria-Hungary hoped to "Lord it over" the balkans in the power gap left by the Ottomans. They had no better claim to suzerainty over the Balkans than Russia did.

>That's not how it was perceived on the Austrian side.
When you make demands and practically all of them are met verbatim (except for one that never demanded anybody be handed over in the first place), you shouldn't "See" it any other way.

>Meddling within the sphere of influence of another Empire is an act of aggression.
No, it isn't and hasn't been. For Austria-Hungary to suddenly make this kind of assertion would be to violate all standards of Diplomatic protocol established since Westphalia.

>>2006332
>where treaties are honored by the vast majority of the international community
They are honoured as long as they are backed by sufficient military might. Germany was in the position to challenge them - or thought themselves to be at least.

>Germany's attempts to defy that failed
Not because of pieces of paper but because of shells and bullets.

>>2006331
>And extending into that sphere was a provocation. And provoking them while they were in a national crisis was maybe not the best of ideas.
No, it wasn't a provocation. Prove it was. Don't just assert, prove.

>That's not how it was perceived on the Austrian side.
And the Austrian side was wrong.

>The Austro-Hungarian empire has factually lorded over the Balkans.
So had Russia, more so in fact.

>Or why do you think did Serbian terrorists kill the Austrian Archduke in the first place?
Because they were Bosnians and wanted to free their homeland from Austrian rule.

>There were terrorists who accomplished quite the feat - killing the heir to the throne of a European great power.
Doesn't answer the question - how does this make Serbia a terrorist state. An Italian accomplished quite a feat of killing their Empress too, but Italy was not a terrorist state

>Meddling within the sphere of influence of another Empire is an act of aggression
Again, you have presented no evidence that it was an Austrian sphere of influence. If anything, since Serbia had an alliance with Russia, it was a Russian sphere of influence that Austria was meddling in.

Things don't become spheres of influence just because you say so 100 years later. What I'm asking for is some actual evidence from the time that Serbia was a recognized Austrian sphere of influence. Plenty of people in this thread have provided evidence showing you're full of shit, and you haven't been able to post a single source contradicting them.

>Austria was in a national crisis
You keep repeating this, but might I ask to what this refers? Do you mean von Sturgkh's suspension of Parliament? Because that hardly qualifies.

>>2006348
>They are honoured as long as they are backed by sufficient military might.
Military Might in the 20th and 21st century is not used at all by nation states without those pieces of paper, so your argument simply conflates the chicken with the egg.
>Not because of pieces of paper but because of shells and bullets.
A significant number of shells and bullets would not be flying had it not been for those pieces of paper.

>>2006347
>No, they weren't. It was the Ottomans that were there first
The House of Habsburg looks back at a longer history than that.

>They had no better claim to suzerainty over the Balkans than Russia did.
It was in their direct vicinity. A lot more so than Russia.

>No, it isn't
It is. Russia was backing terrorists.

>>2006363
>The House of Habsburg looks back at a longer history than that.
Not in the Balkans.

>Russia was backing terrorists.
They weren't, they were backing Serbia, and Serbia wasn't backing terrorists either. Those terrorists and the Serbian government hated each other.

>>2006351
>No, it wasn't a provocation. Prove it was. Don't just assert, prove.
Imagine Canada backing Afghanistan after 9/11 and threatening to invade the US together with Mexico in case they attempted to invade. That's the situation. If you don't think that this was no provocation then you must be out of your mind.

>And the Austrian side was wrong.
No, they were not.

>Because they were Bosnians and wanted to free their homeland from Austrian rule.
I'm sure lots of Africans, Indians and whatever types of people had similar wishes, but we can't all get what we want. Some people rule, some people are being ruled over.

>Doesn't answer the question - how does this make Serbia a terrorist state.
If there is reasonable suspicion that the government has been infiltrated then that term fits.

>If anything, since Serbia had an alliance with Russia, it was a Russian sphere of influence that Austria was meddling in.
Russia wasn't in the place to make such alliances in the first place - let alone honour them in the face of such acts.

>Plenty of people in this thread have provided evidence showing you're full of shit
I haven't seen a lot of evidence at all.

>You keep repeating this, but might I ask to what this refers?
They were in a state of shock comparable to the US after 9/11.

>>2006363
>The House of Habsburg looks back at a longer history than that.
The Hapsburgs occupied greater Serbia for a grand total of less than fifty years in from the creation of the Holy Roman Empire to its dissolution, compared to centuries of Ottoman rule. Serbia's creation and independence in the 19th century from both the Ottomans and Austria-Hungarian rule was through the support of Russia as well, so both Russia and the Ottoman Empire could lay stronger claims to "lording it over" the Serbians than Austria-Hungary.
>It was in their direct vicinity. A lot more so than Russia.
Gibraltar is in Spain's direct vicinity, as is French Guyana in Brazil's. Nevertheless, Britain and France, respectively, hold a stronger claim to these lands than Spain or Brazil.

>It is. Russia was backing terrorists.
[citation needed]

File: europe_map_without_germany.jpg (107KB, 700x543px)

107KB, 700x543px

>>1995834
>Was Versaille too harsh for Germans?

Clearly, it wasn't harsh enough.

>>2006381
>Imagine Canada backing Afghanistan after 9/11 and threatening to invade the US together with Mexico in case they attempted to invade
Except Serbia's relationship with the Black Hand was not the same as the Taliban's with al-Qaeda, a fact people have repeatedely brought up but you conveniently ignore every time.

>If there is reasonable suspicion that the government has been infiltrated then that term fits.
There was no reasonable suspicion. There was an unreasonable one.

>Russia wasn't in the place to make such alliances in the first place - let alone honour them in the face of such acts.
Clearly they were.

>I haven't seen a lot of evidence at all.
That's because you ignore it when it's posted. I notice you didn't respond to the evidence in these posts, instead choosing to discuss only minor points: >>2006176 >>2006181 >>2006079 >>2004780. You're too obvious dude. You get BTFO, then you stop responding to the people and change your claims.

>They were in a state of shock comparable to the US after 9/11.
Might have been believable if they had acted immediately like Germany told them to, but they waited a month, more than enough time for any "shock" (which was actually non-existent in government circles) to wear off.

>>2006381
>Imagine Canada backing Afghanistan after 9/11 and threatening to invade the US together with Mexico in case they attempted to invade.
Do you seriously think the United States would give a shit? Nevermind that the analogy is completely flawed, the idea that the United States would feel threatened enough by war with Mexico and Canada to declare war first is laughable.

>If there is reasonable suspicion that the government has been infiltrated then that term fits.
>If there is reasonable suspicion that an individual was complicit in a crime, then the term criminal fits.
No, it doesn't.

>Russia wasn't in the place to make such alliances in the first place
According to who?
>let alone honour them in the face of such acts.
Nevertheless, it was not wrong to honor them.

>They were in a state of shock comparable to the US after 9/11.
[citation needed]

>>2006388
I've always felt Belgium gets unfairly stiffed in this image given they suffered from the Eternal Kraut as much as anyone (besides Jews, Poles, and Russians of course)

>>2006412
Right? The fuck did the Netherlands do to deserve all that German clay?

>>2006418
And why does Austria gain? They were complicit in everything the G*rms did. They should be partitioned too

>>2006403
>Except Serbia's relationship with the Black Hand was not the same as the Taliban's with al-Qaeda
In hindsight people can claim a lot. Not to mention that the connection between the Taliban and Al-Quaeda has been rather murky as well.

>There was no reasonable suspicion. There was an unreasonable one.
Wrong.

>Clearly they were.
They were in the sense of being able to do so - but it escalated into WW1.

>That's because you ignore it when it's posted.
First of all, I did respond and made reference to these posts. Second, they have nothing to do with the given issue since they are quotes of German military brass which are supposed to assert some German ambition for war rather than prove that somehow Austria had no business in Serbia. In regard to these posts I've already mentioned that you can find similar evidence on the other side, e.g. Poincaré issuing a carte blanche.

>Might have been believable if they had acted immediately like Germany told them to
They couldn't because their soldiers were on vacation for harvest. Looks like you don't even know what you're talking about.

>>2006404
>Do you seriously think the United States would give a shit?
Whether they would give a shit is a different question. The question was: would they feel provoked? And yes, they would.

>No, it doesn't.
Semantics aren't going to save your argument.

>Nevertheless, it was not wrong to honor them.
It was. They were protecting terrorists that had cowardly murdered the heir to the throne of a European great power.

>They were in a state of shock comparable to the US after 9/11.
>[citation needed]
So you don't think having their heir murdered left an impact?

>>2006426
>First of all, I did respond and made reference to these posts.
No, you didn't. You responded to other random parts of the posts, but not the evidence.

>Second, they have nothing to do with the given issue since they are quotes of German military brass which are supposed to assert some German ambition for war rather than prove that somehow Austria had no business in Serbia
This thread was about Germany originally.

>n regard to these posts I've already mentioned that you can find similar evidence on the other side, e.g. Poincaré issuing a carte blanche.
Provide it then. But you can't, can you?

>They couldn't because their soldiers were on vacation for harvest
>harvest
>July
wut? Do you even agriculture? The harvest is in the autumn bro

The point about shock obviously not lasting for a month is still valid no matter what the reason for the delay was, BTW

>>2006441
>No, you didn't. You responded to other random parts of the posts, but not the evidence.
I said that your "evidence" is meaningless because the military was not in charge of the country and you can randomly pick various kinds of people who supported war on the entente side as well. Who mattered was the Kaiser and Bethmann-Hollwegh and for them to give in took quite a bit of convincing. The arguments were supplied by Russian aggression.

>>2006436
>Semantics aren't going to save your argument.
That's not semantics guy

>So you don't think having their heir murdered left an impact?
No, not that much. Why don't you prove some proof it did?

>>2006445
>Who mattered was the Kaiser and Bethmann-Hollweg
There were literally quotes from the latter in there. Did you read them? He clearly says they were motivated by the desire to start a war before Russia finished reforming its military in 1917. He also explicitly states he didn't care about Serbia or Franz Ferdinand, but just viewed it as a good opportunity to start a war while it was still winnable.

>>2006455
Did you even read my post?

>for them to give in took quite a bit of convincing. The arguments were supplied by Russian aggression.

What you're referring to are conversation fractions taken from when most had already been decided.

>>2006459
You think most had already been decided on 7 July? Also, them taking convincing doesn't really mean much, they still acted in an aggressive manner.

Why are you so adverse to providing proof for your claims? When so many of them have been thoroughly rebutted here, you shouldn't expect people to just take you at your word.

>>2006441
>Provide it then. But you can't, can you?
I'd have to look it up, but refer to Volker Berghahn.

>wut? Do you even agriculture? The harvest is in the autumn bro
No, I don't agriculture. Fact is however that a sizeable fraction of the soldiers were on harvest leave. Look it up.

>>2006472
>they still acted in an aggressive manner.
Opposed to Russia?

>Why are you so adverse to providing proof for your claims?
I'm stating easily recognisable facts.

>When so many of them have been thoroughly rebutted here
You mean people claiming that I am "wrong" without any further substantiation of their argument?

>>2006476
>I'd have to look it up, but refer to Volker Berghahn.
A name drop to a guy who has written several different books isn't very helpful.

>Look it up.
It's not my job to substantiate your claims, for you. Also, still haven't responded to this:
>The point about shock obviously not lasting for a month is still valid no matter what the reason for the delay was, BTW

>>2006446
>That's not semantics guy
It is.

>No, not that much. Why don't you prove some proof it did?
Proof like what? Statements like "Austria was in a state of shock"? "Europe was in a state of shock"?

I can find plenty of these.

A qualitative comparison which provides the analogue to 9/11 is nothing you would find in a contemporary source.

>>2000845
germany still had an army, it was an armistice not a conquest.

WW2 didn't get harsher because if you harmed Germans then you get an even more unified nazi isis terrorism that would fuck your ass up.

>>2006490
Took me two minutes to google:

>Initial opposition of the Hungarian Prime Minister and military unpreparedness, as many regular troops were on harvest leave, meant several weeks went by before Austria-Hungary could take action

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-people/politics/politicians/3827-the-july-crisis-1914-what-went-wrong-19-steps-to-disaster.html

>The point about shock obviously not lasting for a month is still valid
Shock perhaps not, but the humiliation was suffered.

>>2006483
>Opposed to Russia?
Yes, Russia did not act aggressively, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

>I'm stating easily recognisable facts.
Your're not.

>You mean people claiming that I am "wrong" without any further substantiation of their argument?
There's been plenty of substantiation, you just choose to ignore it.

You just keep repeating the same things over and over with no evidence, despite being refuted many times over. I am confident it is obvious to all that you have nothing, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. If the others want to, they can, but it's clear to me you're never going to admit you're wrong.

>>2006506
>WW2 didn't get harsher
The post WW2 treaties were fairly harsh. The whole country was occupied after all. Germany was rebuilt because frankly - it's geo-strategically too important - but it had no autonomy. Not to mention being split apart.

>>2006514
>Update]
Harsher as in exterminating Germans or some bullshit like that, you would get tons of resistance cells that, east germans could play along to puppet communist state same as west germans but if you take away normalcy and their regular social order you would get 140iq isis like leaders which wage guerilla war and establish the state again.

>>2006507
I'm still a little skeptical because the harvest is clearly not in July, but whatever.

Nevertheless, their wounded pride is no reason to start a world war.

>>2006498
>It is.
You clearly don't know what semantics means. The argument was an accusation is not evidence, which is not a semantics argument.

>Proof like what?
Proof that Austrian statesmen were unable to think rationally because of their "shock" a month after Franz Ferdinand was killed.

>>2006511
>Yes, Russia did not act aggressively
They backed Serbia, a nation which harboured terrorists that murdered the Austrian Archduke. And they did so under the premise of a military intervention, well knowingly putting Germany in check with France.

>Your're not.
Yes, I am. I post clearly evident facts which anyone can look up who has access to google without any effort.

>There's been plenty of substantiation, you just choose to ignore it.
Not at all. I've responded to all posts you've mentioned and to the supposed arguments to refute mine. The fact that you disagree with my reasoning due to being obviously biased in one way does not make it any less true.

>it's clear to me you're never going to admit you're wrong.
That's my impression of you.

>>2006532
>The argument was an accusation is not evidence, which is not a semantics argument.
No, the argument was terms from the sphere of criminal law, albeit analogously applied at a national scale don't really apply.

>Proof that Austrian statesmen were unable to think rationally because of their "shock" a month after Franz Ferdinand was killed.
It's less matter of being shocked and more a matter of being humiliated and not wanting to suffer further humiliation.

>>2006524
>Nevertheless, their wounded pride is no reason to start a world war.
It's not like they intended to start a world war.

But it's getting late here, so we might as well end this here. It's not like this topic isn't discussed on a weekly basis.

>>1996224

Torpedoes can't blow up nonexistent gunpowder. Passenger liners normally sink, not explode.

Wow kraut apologists got BTFO ITT

>>2003443
>Hungarians in Romania,

There is still more than a million Hungarian in romania, the tension kinda remained, they weren't drawn out/genocided like germans in Eastern Europe, though they were oppressed for a time and their numbers are lower than they should be, lot of cities were romanised like Oradea or Cluj.