NationStates Jolt Archive

Just had a couple points about WWI I'd like to share.

1.) Q: Which country (on both sides) lost the most men?

A: Germany
Germany lost upwards of 1.75 million men. Compared to Russia, the expected answer, of 1.69 million.
Britain? 730000.
Now, I understand that France had the Lost Generation and Britain lost a lot of men, but the German casualties both civilian and military were mjor contributors in the early demise of the Germn economy, along with the impossible reparations enforced by the Treaty of Versailles.

2.) Q:What caused more civilian deaths, the German Rape of Belgium or the English blockade?

A: The English blockade caused over 750000 German civilian deaths, mainly due to starvation. Were the English at all appalled by the death toll? No.
Compare this stat to only around 30000 Belgian civilian deaths and the 730000 British military casualties.
Seems like the British caused more harm than the Germans.

3.) Which country 'started' World War One?

A: Germany? Nope, unless you're French or British. As many basic students of World War One know, the war began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. This lead to war with Serbia, which was allied with Russia. Russia declares war on AH. Germany, the ally of AH, declares war on Russia. Now, France was the ally of Russia. Germany feared encirclement, war on both its fronts. According to its logic, France would declare war on Germany. Germany wanted a preemptive strike to stop the French advance. Therefore, they declared war on both Belgium and France to carry out their plans.

To me, it is obvious that the precarious situation of alliances in Industrial Europe led to the war, and to Germany's part in it. It seems that Germany gets a bum rap from both WWI and Hitler's Nazi Era. German immigrants in the US were sometimes forced to change their names to something more American to escape being persecuted for something they had no control over.

Well my rant is over. Thanks for listening!

A: Germany? Nope, unless you're French or British. As many basic students of World War One know, the war began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

Yes...and being British or French precludes studying history?

Germany only got the rap for starting the war because they accepted such harsh terms in the Treaty of Versailles. It's hard even to say that they lost the war. The war had ground to a halt due to attrition on both sides.

France and Britain sowed the seeds and reaped them 20 years later.



BUT! no nation is blameless in that war, no nation is more wrong than the other or less wrong for that matter.


That was truly a slaughter over one inconsiquential man.


And the Roots of the France and Germany's hatred can be traced back to the Franco-Prussian war(or even earlier, it was a viscious cycle that hopefully has been stopped), in which Bismarck managed to trick France into starting the war so he could unify the rest of germany, minus austria.

I thought that per capita, the French lost the most?

And as for giving Germany a "bum rap" over the nazi era...they actually did start that one. But that doesn't mean I should blame the German people, or get pissed at German-Canadians on the street.

As far as WW1 goes, my country (Canada) shouldn't have even gotten involved...it was just a power struggle between a bunch of capitalist countries, and all we did was send the working class to die for nothing. Basically, we just sent them in to defend one ruling class against another.

Germany only got the rap for starting the war because they accepted such harsh terms in the Treaty of Versailles. It's hard even to say that they lost the war. The war had ground to a halt due to attrition on both sides.



Actually the AEF was advancing into germany when the Armistice was declared, it would have gone on longer but Germany was at the Breaking point.

Well, I think he meant that the reasons they came into the war was Germany, France because Germany invaded, and Britain because Germany was invading Belgium (though they would have found another excuse if that had not happened).

As far as WW1 goes, my country (Canada) shouldn't have even gotten involved...it was just a power struggle between a bunch of capitalist countries, and all we did was send the working class to die for nothing. Basically, we just sent them in to defend one ruling class against another.

Canada didnt exist in 1914. Not in its present form anyway.

Germany got ass-raped at Versaille. Probably a cause (if only a minor one) for Germany's economic decline in the 1930s- though this can mostly be blamed on the Wall st. crash.

I studied history, and i went to an English comprehensive.

Liasia']Germany got ass-raped at Versaille. Probably a cause (if only a minor one) for Germany's economic decline in the 1930s- though this can mostly be blamed on the Wall st. crash.

I studied history, and i went to an English comprehensive.









........................

........................

Ah shush. I don't need to have reasonable or comprehendable viewpoints.

the reason why germany got given war guilt was because they threw unconditional suport behind Austria-Hungary with its squabble with Serbia over Bosnia.

there is anotherthread with the worst millitary commanders somewhere, this is one, the german commander executing the schleiffen plan. He left too many men on the Maginot Line (the French border with germany) and attacked stopped encircling Paris too soon so the armies ended up 50 miles short, if they had carried on Paris would have fallen, France out of war, Uk wont carry on fighting, Russians than annihlated by the combined Austro-Hungarian armies, Russia would have been divided similarly with the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk and the Germans would rule up to belgium and another slice of France, the Russian Empire would dissolve and Austria-Hungary controls the balkans

Canada didnt exist in 1914.

Yes, it did. The Confederation was formed in 1867.

Not in its present form anyway.

Then neither did Britain. Or Germany. Or the US. Or most other countries.

Was Canada inderpendant?

the reason why germany got given war guilt was because they threw unconditional suport behind Austria-Hungary with its squabble with Serbia over Bosnia.

there is anotherthread with the worst millitary commanders somewhere, this is one, the german commander executing the schleiffen plan. He left too many men on the Maginot Line (the French border with germany) and attacked stopped encircling Paris too soon so the armies ended up 50 miles short, if they had carried on Paris would have fallen, France out of war, Uk wont carry on fighting, Russians than annihlated by the combined Austro-Hungarian armies, Russia would have been divided similarly with the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk and the Germans would rule up to belgium and another slice of France, the Russian Empire would dissolve and Austria-Hungary controls the balkans
Silly, the French didn't make the Maginot Line until after the war. Didn't work though, the Germans went right around it in WWII. :p

i voted no but thats only with the benefit of hindsight.

What stupid points.

To a country like Germany, the reperations were nothing, they only were 2% of the economic output of Germany per year! Plus they had 60 odd years to pay it back, even less with the Dawes plan.

German government used reperations as an excuse of the problems.

For starting the war, it was the Dual-Alliance. It could of stopped at just being between Habsburg and Russia over the Balkins but Germany went a step further, it went and invaded neutral countries and into France, they surely have blame.

As for deaths, all wars have them, the inferior tactics of the war caused all the deaths anyway.

If you want facts, I advise reading A. J. P. Taylor.

Can even argue that the Habsburg empire was worse off, it didn't exist after WW1.

The map of Europe changed entirely and it was the beginning of the end of Imperialism.

A: Germany? Nope, unless you're French or British.
Pardon?

Being British or French doesn't make you magically ignorant. I've studied the history of the period, and it's exceptionally difficult to decide who really did start it.

Saying "the assassination of Franz Ferdinand" as the cause of World War one is like saying "Hitler and Stalin invading Poland" was the entirety of the cause of World War two.

Oh and Akh Horus - you're exceptionally wrong. The Dawes plan gave US loans to Germany to help support the Rentonmark and to help build up German industry.

If you are thinking of the Young Plan, that actually increased reperations in terms of length, although reduced the amount that had to be paid every year.

Ginnoria - there was a defensive line incredibly similar to the Maginot line already in place pretty much on the French border with Alsace-Lorraine. Which is why the Germans went through Belgium instead of just going in that way.

If you want facts, I advise reading A. J. P. Taylor.

I agree that A.J.P. Taylor is quite a good historian, but he is also a communist. I could just as equally tell you to go and read some David Irving works. His "facts" are just as good, except from the other view point. (well actually I don't think Irving has done any work on World War One so even if you wanted to you couldn't)

Germany totally got shafted by the Allies. of course, they were the losers. But, the Allies could've been a bit nicer :D

Germany totally got shafted by the Allies. of course, they were the losers. But, the Allies could've been a bit nicer :D
Yeah. Reperations were utterly unnecessary, and the war guilt clause was spiteful and not really necessary.

Was Canada inderpendant?


They were a Dominion.



And I believe they remained that way till 1982ish?

Yeah. Reperations were utterly unnecessary, and the war guilt clause was spiteful and not really necessary.

Yeah, probably the only time in history where people should have listened to the Americans :p

The allies, chefly France and Britain were sooo greedy. They also shafted the Arabs with the betrayal after the Arab Revolt. They were promised their own freedom and independence but were betrayed by the imperial powers.

They were a Dominion.



And I believe they remained that way till 1982ish?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no sorry. Re-check your facts.

They were a Dominion.



And I believe they remained that way till 1982ish?

Ok my apologies. You are still wrong, but your answer wasn't as stupid as I originally thought.

"Upon Confederation in 1867, the name Canada was officially adopted for the new dominion, which was commonly referred to as the Dominion of Canada until the 1950s. As Canada increasingly acquired political authority and autonomy from Britain, the federal government increasingly began using simply Canada on state documents and treaties. The Canada Act 1982 refers only to Canada and, as such, is currently the only legal, as well as bilingual, name. This was also reflected later in 1982 with the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day."

Ok my apologies. You are still wrong, but your answer wasn't as stupid as I originally thought.

"Upon Confederation in 1867, the name Canada was officially adopted for the new dominion, which was commonly referred to as the Dominion of Canada until the 1950s. As Canada increasingly acquired political authority and autonomy from Britain, the federal government increasingly began using simply Canada on state documents and treaties. The Canada Act 1982 refers only to Canada and, as such, is currently the only legal, as well as bilingual, name. This was also reflected later in 1982 with the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day."

Wikipedia *nods*

Ok my apologies. You are still wrong, but your answer wasn't as stupid as I originally thought.

"Upon Confederation in 1867, the name Canada was officially adopted for the new dominion, which was commonly referred to as the Dominion of Canada until the 1950s. As Canada increasingly acquired political authority and autonomy from Britain, the federal government increasingly began using simply Canada on state documents and treaties. The Canada Act 1982 refers only to Canada and, as such, is currently the only legal, as well as bilingual, name. This was also reflected later in 1982 with the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day."


meh, for someone that doesn't care about canada, I think i was close enough.

Actually the AEF was advancing into germany when the Armistice was declared, it would have gone on longer but Germany was at the Breaking point.

No French, British, or American troops set foot on German soil for the duration of the entire war, with the exception of a tiny sliver of land the French managed to hold in southern Alsace-Lorraine. They were advancing TOWARD Germany, but they never got into it.

I also think that Germany was unfairly treated after the war, and I'm sure if they'd actually had REPRESENTATION in the peace talks and the writing of the Versailles treaty, they never would have accepted such harsh terms. If anything, the French and the British were just as exhausted and devastated by the war as the Germans were, and they really had no right to demand that many concessions from them.

Yeah, probably the only time in history where people should have listened to the Americans :p
Quite probably.

No French, British, or American troops set foot on German soil for the duration of the entire war, with the exception of a tiny sliver of land the French managed to hold in southern Alsace-Lorraine. They were advancing TOWARD Germany, but they never got into it.

I also think that Germany was unfairly treated after the war, and I'm sure if they'd actually had REPRESENTATION in the peace talks and the writing of the Versailles treaty, they never would have accepted such harsh terms. If anything, the French and the British were just as exhausted and devastated by the war as the Germans were, and they really had no right to demand that many concessions from them.


"The attack was renewed on October 4 against 20 German line and reserve divisions. Casualties and exhaustion were such that General Pershing required 90,000 replacements, but could obtain only 45,000 until November 1. He discussed the situation with the Allied commander-in-chief, Marshal Foch, who urged the attacks to continue, since they were aimed at the chief German line of retreat. By October 14, American units had reached and crossed portions of the Hindenburg Line."



*cough*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse-Argonne_Offensive*cough*


Hindenburg line/AKA german BORDER.

What the hell does the nazis-choice have to do in a Great War poll?

What the hell does the nazis-choice have to do in a Great War poll?



The OP is a retard.

"The attack was renewed on October 4 against 20 German line and reserve divisions. Casualties and exhaustion were such that General Pershing required 90,000 replacements, but could obtain only 45,000 until November 1. He discussed the situation with the Allied commander-in-chief, Marshal Foch, who urged the attacks to continue, since they were aimed at the chief German line of retreat. By October 14, American units had reached and crossed portions of the Hindenburg Line."



*cough*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse-Argonne_Offensive*cough*

Hindenburg line/AKA german BORDER.
No.

The Hindenburg Line aka The Siegfried Position was not placed on the German border but on enemy territory. During Operation Alarich the German Army withdrew to this position which had been build in the years before.

And a nasty cough you have there...

How utterly hypocritical. France and Britain essentially punishing Germany for what they had done earlier? Where do they get off? :rolleyes: Personally, I think Germany was excessively punished. Too bad it provoked the US. History would be very different today had it been more prudent. So no, Germany did not deserve what it got. Personally I hope that prick Wilson rots in his grave for intervening in the war.

Ok my apologies. You are still wrong, but your answer wasn't as stupid as I originally thought.

"Upon Confederation in 1867, the name Canada was officially adopted for the new dominion, which was commonly referred to as the Dominion of Canada until the 1950s. As Canada increasingly acquired political authority and autonomy from Britain, the federal government increasingly began using simply Canada on state documents and treaties. The Canada Act 1982 refers only to Canada and, as such, is currently the only legal, as well as bilingual, name. This was also reflected later in 1982 with the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day."

That still doesn't mean Canada was independent in 1914.

Canada wasn't granted control over its foreign affairs until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. This is why Canada was in WW1 - the British sent us. In WW2, we made a point of not declaring war on Germany right away just to prove that we had the power to decide on our own.

Canada wasn't granted the power to amend its own constitution until 1982.

I always though it was the French that went for the heavy terms Lloyd-George wanted lesser more leinant terms

I always though it was the French that went for the heavy terms Lloyd-George wanted lesser more leinant terms
Lloyd George wanted to, but public opinion in Britain was in favour of the heavier, so he had to accede to that. Hence Wilson was left with no option but to go along with that.


Personally I hope that prick Wilson rots in his grave for intervening in the war.
Given he actually campaigned for re-election in 1916 on the grounds that he kept the US out of the war, was a tad hypocritical, but real shame his 14 points plan etc wasn't more widely accepted and adopted.


On a side note, WWI generals are often unfairly maligned. They were dealing with a almost completely new sort of war (trenches had been used before but never on anything like that scale), and there were few clever tactics they could use. No air bombing available, effective mines didn't come in until 1916/7, ditto for tanks, and weren't able to land a large enough force via sea behind enemy lines, they were ordered to attack and shelling and mass charges were really their only available option (Lloyd George really was an idiot when it came to military affairs).

As for the German guy staging the Schlieffen plan, if he'd diverted more troops into the hammer part of the strategy, the Germans wouldn't have been able to supply all the troops via Belgium, they just didn't have the capability to do it.

Germany only got the rap for starting the war because they accepted such harsh terms in the Treaty of Versailles. It's hard even to say that they lost the war. The war had ground to a halt due to attrition on both sides.

Sorry, but that is not correct. The Germans gambled everything on the Spring Offensive of 1918. Had they had supplies (troops actually stopped and ransacked food because they were so hungry) and anything like a good signal corps, they probably would have broken through to Paris.

It was the failure of the Spring Offensive coupled with the Americans sending in hundreds of thousands of fresh troops that made Germany surrender in November.

Just had a couple points about WWI I'd like to share.

1.) Q: Which country (on both sides) lost the most men?

A: Germany
Germany lost upwards of 1.75 million men. Compared to Russia, the expected answer, of 1.69 million.
Britain? 730000.
Now, I understand that France had the Lost Generation and Britain lost a lot of men, but the German casualties both civilian and military were mjor contributors in the early demise of the Germn economy, along with the impossible reparations enforced by the Treaty of Versailles.

Yep. But losses in war don't mean that they should or should have not been held accountable. Kaiser Bill didn't have to give Emperor Franz-Joseph a blank check to beat up Serbia. The A-H army could do that just fine on their own as they'd been doing so for decades.

2.) Q:What caused more civilian deaths, the German Rape of Belgium or the English blockade?

A: The English blockade caused over 750000 German civilian deaths, mainly due to starvation. Were the English at all appalled by the death toll? No.
Compare this stat to only around 30000 Belgian civilian deaths and the 730000 British military casualties.
Seems like the British caused more harm than the Germans.

Again, losses in warfare don't mean that makes the German government any less culpable. While I don't think the reparations were a good idea, I also don't see your points 1&2 as reasons why. By that logic, the Nazis aren't culpable for WW2.
Never mind that the British Blockade would almost certainly not have occurred had Belgian neutrality not been ignored.

3.) Which country 'started' World War One?

A: Germany? Nope, unless you're French or British. As many basic students of World War One know, the war began with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. This lead to war with Serbia, which was allied with Russia. Russia declares war on AH. Germany, the ally of AH, declares war on Russia. Now, France was the ally of Russia. Germany feared encirclement, war on both its fronts. According to its logic, France would declare war on Germany. Germany wanted a preemptive strike to stop the French advance. Therefore, they declared war on both Belgium and France to carry out their plans.

To me, it is obvious that the precarious situation of alliances in Industrial Europe led to the war, and to Germany's part in it. It seems that Germany gets a bum rap from both WWI and Hitler's Nazi Era. German immigrants in the US were sometimes forced to change their names to something more American to escape being persecuted for something they had no control over.

Well my rant is over. Thanks for listening!

...and again, Germany backed A-H way in excess of what it needed to crush Serbia. Heck, Serbia MET all but ONE of A-H's demands before hostilities began! Germany could have sent some divisions, or granted A-H a set amount of funds, or some such thing instead of starting the march to Paris.

I thought that per capita, the French lost the most?

*snip

Actually, per capita, New Zealand lost the most soldiers, followed by Australia.

Friggin Gallipoli, way to go Churchill.

...and again, Germany backed A-H way in excess of what it needed to crush Serbia.
It would be important to note though that when Bethmann-Hollweg gave that "blank cheque", the crisis hadn't really developed yet. It was merely a routine alá "Yes, we stick to our alliances."
The US ambassador to Berlin remarked that at the time, no one thought a war might occur, and many of the higher establishment took their holidays while the Austrians were making things worse than they had to be.

And Germany asked Russia to stay out of it as well, which the Russians refused although they would know that Germany could not ignore their aggression in such a case. A bilateral understanding not to get involved could have averted a war.

It would be important to note though that when Bethmann-Hollweg gave that "blank cheque", the crisis hadn't really developed yet. It was merely a routine alá "Yes, we stick to our alliances."
The US ambassador to Berlin remarked that at the time, no one thought a war might occur, and many of the higher establishment took their holidays while the Austrians were making things worse than they had to be.

And Germany asked Russia to stay out of it as well, which the Russians refused although they would know that Germany could not ignore their aggression in such a case. A bilateral understanding not to get involved could have averted a war.

I somehow doubt that a bilateral understanding not to get involved would ever of happened, why would Russian stand by and watch as A-H invaded Serbia? The Russians had the reputation as the protector of the Slavs (I think thats right.. Not sure.. whatever the people down there were called) so it wasn't like they were ever going to just stand by and watch as A-H did such a thing.

Break rules of ius gentium, consider yourself happy if you are even left alive afterwards.

I somehow doubt that a bilateral understanding not to get involved would ever of happened, why would Russian stand by and watch as A-H invaded Serbia? The Russians had the reputation as the protector of the Slavs (I think thats right.. Not sure.. whatever the people down there were called) so it wasn't like they were ever going to just stand by and watch as A-H did such a thing.

Yup, and the Russians had also been humliated by their inability to intervene in Austro-Hungury's take over of Bosnia due to either still being fighting the 1905 war or still recovering from it (cant remember when the Austrians Invaded and annexed Bosnia). This time they couldnt let Austria do what it wanted without being totally discredited as a major power.

The Versailles treaty was very unjust to the Germans. The War Guilt clause was particularly harsh, considering that the massive war could have been avoided had Russia not intervened to aid Serbia. The Alliances of the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy) meant each country had an obligation to fight once Russia threatened Austro-Hungary.


The cost of paying for all damage incurred in every country besides Russia during the war was an unrealistic debt.
The German's losing all of their colonies in Africa and so on also contributed to their economic collapse.
Decreasing the standing army to 100000 men, without conscription left the country not practically defenceless.

The unrealistic and harsh terms of Versailles also gave the Nazi Party a platform to stand on and, coupled with their burning of the Reichstag, gave them a majority vote to power. The Versailles treaty also gave the Nazi's the excuse to invade Austria and Czecheslovakia, and re-militarize as much as they did as far as the then spineless politicians were concerned.

The Versailles treaty was very unjust to the Germans. The War Guilt clause was particularly harsh, considering that the massive war could have been avoided had Russia not intervened to aid Serbia. The Alliances of the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy) meant each country had an obligation to fight once Russia threatened Austro-Hungary.

SNIP.


As the fact that within 20 years Germany was once again able to be an aggressor proves, the Versailles Treaty was not harsh enough by a huge margin.

As the fact that within 20 years Germany was once again able to be an aggressor proves, the Versailles Treaty was not harsh enough by a huge margin.

Oh,no they were harsh enough, they just were not enforced strongly enough. If the Allies had wanted to they could have intervened when Germany started re-arming, and that would have been the end of the problem.

Or the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.

The problem was the harshness of the treaty added to the lackness it was enforced with later (in the early 20s it was enforced quite strictly, like when France invaded the Saarland when Germany didnt pay its reperation payments on schedule).

As the fact that within 20 years Germany was once again able to be an aggressor proves, the Versailles Treaty was not harsh enough by a huge margin.

Yes, but politicians such as Neville Chamberlain who allowed Germany to regain the Rhineland, invade Austria and Czecheslovakia, and re-militarize did so due to the initial harshness of the treaty.

This foreign policy was known as Appeasement. This was instated because politicians of the time realised how unfair the treaty had been, and allowed Germany to re-arm and so on. However, Germany went too far due to the Fascist aims of the Nazi party. They claimed Austria and Czecheslovakia despite the fact that they were not former German territory, but the states of Europe where not prepared at that time to go to war with Germany to contest them.

The Versailles treaty gave rise to a fascist government and Germany was allowed to re-arm because of the harsh terms of the treaty. If the terms were not so harsh, it is unlikely the Nazi's would have come to power in the first place, and Germany wouldn't have been the great aggressor she became.

Also, I believe Germany asked for a guarantee of neutrality from France following the outbreak of hostilities in the east. France refused. If a country refuses to say they will be neutral, it's pretty obvious that country plans on joining in. Besides, everyone knew about the Schlieffen Plan because it was adopted about 10 years earlier. France then knew that by refusing to declare their neutrality, Germany would be forced to attack them. Likewise, Russia knew that Germany would attack France first and give them time to get on the offensive, and Britain knew that the Germans would be forced to invade Belgium. The Entente powers should have known exactly what would happen under which circumstances.

The Russians had the reputation as the protector of the Slavs (I think thats right.. Not sure.. whatever the people down there were called) so it wasn't like they were ever going to just stand by and watch as A-H did such a thing.
It is right, and you paid attention, which is good.

The question is however: Was that a good reason to go to war?

Because if you are suggesting that A-H starting a war on terrorism after the terrible events of 6/28 was not, and Germany supporting its ally in such a difficult time was not...then why is Russia's support of this terrorist state justified?

Hehehehe.

It is right, and you paid attention, which is good.

The question is however: Was that a good reason to go to war?

Because if you are suggesting that A-H starting a war on terrorism after the terrible events of 6/28 was not, and Germany supporting its ally in such a difficult time was not...then why is Russia's support of this terrorist state justified?

Hehehehe.

Everybody, even his own family hated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. They were probably surprised he had even done something as useful as providing an excuse to invade Serbia (which agreed to almost all the Austrian demands, just not the most extreme ones which would have essentially put Serbia at Austria's mercy). Austria was looking for a war with Serbia.

So, I conclude, as we did in my history class many years ago, that WW1 was the fault of Austria's territorial ambitions.

Though of course that is seriously oversimplified.

Also, I believe Germany asked for a guarantee of neutrality from France following the outbreak of hostilities in the east. France refused. If a country refuses to say they will be neutral, it's pretty obvious that country plans on joining in.

They had promised Russia that they would go to war with Germany if Germany declared war on Russia. If they had declared their neutrality France would have been completely discredited as a trust worthy power in diplomatic relations.

If Germany had not delcared war on Russia, France would have not joined the war.




France then knew that by refusing to declare their neutrality, Germany would be forced to attack them. Likewise, Russia knew that Germany would attack France first and give them time to get on the offensive, and Britain knew that the Germans would be forced to invade Belgium. The Entente powers should have known exactly what would happen under which circumstances.

Well, everything was building up to war at some point any way. Many figures talked of the relief when war was declared. Tension had been building up for at least 10 years if not much longer. War was almost inevitable in the early 20th century.

Actually, per capita, New Zealand lost the most soldiers, followed by Australia.

Really? man...I did not know that. Always loved those guys, though. The Aussies and Kiwis are like my brothers an' sisters; our countries have the same parents! Good ol' mother Britain...Well, wait. Australia and New Zealand weren't really created by France at all, like my Canada, but...oh well. They're still siblings to me! :p

The Entente powers should have known exactly what would happen under which circumstances.

Maybe they SHOULD have known, but...as my history teacher liked to say said, hinesight is always 20/20. :D

It would be important to note though that when Bethmann-Hollweg gave that "blank cheque", the crisis hadn't really developed yet. It was merely a routine alá "Yes, we stick to our alliances."
The US ambassador to Berlin remarked that at the time, no one thought a war might occur, and many of the higher establishment took their holidays while the Austrians were making things worse than they had to be.

That's the problem! The "blank check" was issued even before Serbia responded to A-H's demands. It was certainly a factor. Russia couldn't just look at two major powers going on a perceived rampage in what they percieved as a sphere of influence lightly. (And we all know the rest of the mobilization story, so I'll not go into that here.)

[Imagine that next year South Korea votes to try to directly intervene in North Korea for the horrible human rights abuses and widespread starvation caused by its government.
China is being a neutral observer, as are Russia, India and the EU.

Tensions are high. Then the major S-K liason (say, a Vice President) gets killed by an assassin during a friendly sporting event.

S-K sends a list of demands, which N-K debates for a week or so.

Suddenly on day 8 the US pledges all the military support S-K needs and all the funds it could want should war break out.

Changes the scenario quite a bit for China, eh? And, if China mobilized, what does everyone else do?
Does N-K take on S-K and the US, assuming Chinese/VietNamese aid? If China mobilized and attacks the US mainland (say a missile from a ship hits Seattle... then NATO is automatically in the war! Does Russia take a side? Probably: that's their southeast border.]

This is pretty close to the same song, and is not nearly as unlikely as one might think. :(


And Germany asked Russia to stay out of it as well, which the Russians refused although they would know that Germany could not ignore their aggression in such a case. A bilateral understanding not to get involved could have averted a war.

But Billy asking Nicky to stay out of it was pretty unrealistic, no? The Russians had been self-styling themselves in "Pan-Slavism" since the intervention in Hungary (at least!), back in 1848.

I agree a bilateral understanding probably could have avoided war. But so could have A-H not going to war on 1 point, or Serbia totally caving, or Germany not giving A-H such insane backing (which to me was not only the last chance for peace/a small war, but the major reason for a big one).

After all, A-H and Germany were allies of culture and convenience, not love. Franz Joseph did not like the Kaiser very much, and the Kaiser detested Crown Prince Rudolph (when he was alive).

The Alliances of the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy) meant each country had an obligation to fight once Russia threatened Austro-Hungary.
While I agree with most of your post - please keep in mind that Italy did not stay in the Triple Alliance but joined the Entente, thus creating another front in the South.

Yes, but politicians such as Neville Chamberlain who allowed Germany to regain the Rhineland, invade Austria and Czecheslovakia, and re-militarize did so due to the initial harshness of the treaty.

This foreign policy was known as Appeasement. This was instated because politicians of the time realised how unfair the treaty had been, and allowed Germany to re-arm and so on. However, Germany went too far due to the Fascist aims of the Nazi party. They claimed Austria and Czecheslovakia despite the fact that they were not former German territory, but the states of Europe where not prepared at that time to go to war with Germany to contest them.

The Versailles treaty gave rise to a fascist government and Germany was allowed to re-arm because of the harsh terms of the treaty. If the terms were not so harsh, it is unlikely the Nazi's would have come to power in the first place, and Germany wouldn't have been the great aggressor she became.

Butts belong in the bin, and shooting is done with a rifle.

Appeasement is, as you will concede, utterly stupid.

Had the terms been appropriately harsh, there would have been no problem about nazis coming to power, as there would have been nothing to gain power over. Apart from a collection of farms and windmills, that is.
( The alternative would have been permanent occupation. We did do that to Ireland, after they picked and lost a series of fights, you know? )

Morale of the story: if someone's self-determination causes you grief, you take it away.

Butts belong in the bin, and shooting is done with a rifle.

Appeasement is, as you will concede, utterly stupid.

Had the terms been appropriately harsh, there would have been no problem about nazis coming to power, as there would have been nothing to gain power over. Apart from a collection of farms and windmills, that is.
( The alternative would have been permament occupation. We did do that to Ireland, after they picked and lost a series of fights, you know? )

Appeasement was completely stupid. Neville Chamberlain is probably one of the greatest British tools of all time for appeasing Hitler's Germany as he did. When the Triple Entente powers subjected the Germans to the Treaty of Versialles they shouldn't have left their guard down and should have stopped Hitler at the Rhineland.

However, the complete and utter destruction of Germany which would have occured if the terms at Versailles were even harsher wouldn't have left Europe in a comfortable position, with the new threat of Communism from Soviet Russia.

The terms of the treaty should have been fairer to the German economy and military in order to avoid the German people from supporting the radical ideas of National Socialism in desperation.

I'm starting to get the impression that BogMarsh thinks the German people would have all turned into Hitler-loving, Goose-stepping morons whether or not the terms of the treaty were fairer or harsher.

Old saying:
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me.
( Even if Dubya gets confused )

If the Germans once gave us a rude surprise ( as in 1914 ) the main order of business is to see to it that they shall never again be in a position to give us a rude surprise.

Butts belong in the bin, and shooting is done with a rifle.

Appeasement is, as you will concede, utterly stupid.

Had the terms been appropriately harsh, there would have been no problem about nazis coming to power, as there would have been nothing to gain power over. Apart from a collection of farms and windmills, that is.
( The alternative would have been permanent occupation. We did do that to Ireland, after they picked and lost a series of fights, you know? )

Morale of the story: if someone's self-determination causes you grief, you take it away.

And what do you think would had happened in the late 30's or early 40's then, when the Soviets had recovered from the purges? There would have been nothing to stop them before the canal...

So no, if your worst enemy is the only one between you and someone known to be even more dangerous enemy, it is not wise to kill the first enemy after beating him.

And what do you think would had happened in the late 30's or early 40's then, when the Soviets had recovered from the purges? There would have been nothing to stop them before the canal...

So no, if your worst enemy is the only one between you and someone known to be even more dangerous enemy, it is not wise to kill the first enemy after beating him.

Totally and completely agree with this point.

However, the complete and utter destruction of Germany which would have occured if the terms at Versailles were even harsher wouldn't have left Europe in a comfortable position, with the new threat of Communism from Soviet Russia.

It would have been preferable to have had less harsh terms bestowed on the Germans, which would likely have not supported the Nazi party since their main platform for being elected into government in the first place was the ridiculously harsh Versailles Treaty. A reasonably strong and much less hostile Germany would have been created, which would have been a barrier towards Soviet expansion into Europe. At the same time the German people would not be condemned to being a country-less people.

And what do you think would had happened in the late 30's or early 40's then, when the Soviets had recovered from the purges? There would have been nothing to stop them before the canal...

So no, if your worst enemy is the only one between you and someone known to be even more dangerous enemy, it is not wise to kill the first enemy after beating him.


Is that a way of saying that it is morally justified to let mr A of the hook for his own actions because mr B might do something untoward?

It sounds like a way of saying that you must not judge mr A on his own actions,
but that you should judge mr A on mr B's actions.