NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every?

It might be their Awesome Grammar that does it, lol...

But really, most of those "allies" jump on the bandwagon because it looks like America's winning and they want to be part of the spoils that are divided...

Those people would have been just as likely to join Germany had they looked like they would win...

Id say they are the equal of Western Nations...not their better...and visa versa...

lolwut

well in both cases america didnt enter the war till the later end of the stick. and i read a both the other day by a german panzer commander in ww2 and everytime they sent in troops who were not german got obliterated. so the germans had to do everything on there own

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions
You have never been to Germany, have you?

well in both cases america didnt enter the war till the later end of the stick.

Well, WWI maybe, but WWII America was there prettymuch from the onset...its just that we werent able to get into France until '44...but it wasnt long, a year, before Germany was Crushed...

Maybe Germany should get better friends, lol...

You have never been to Germany, have you?
thank you for that uterly useless and unwanted post.

While in germany with virtually no farm land.
Hmm?

Low population.
Hmmmmm?

And barely living off the land
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

what are your opinions
I'll second the lolwut.

The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

The longstanding war-based nature of Germany has always served them well. We don't see this a lot in history, because Germans were very decentralized people until, of course Bismark, and 1871.

After this, Germany moved forward at an incredible rate, and overtook Britain as the world power. The problem is that Kaiser Wilhelm II was and overly-belligerant jerk, who ruined Germany's otherwise advatange. Where Bismark's idea of a 'sated power' would have kept Germany on top.

As far as military innovation, and tactics go, they have gotta be up there, it's in evidence ever since Teutobergerwald, and that not long after the first written records of the Germanic tribes.

Also, Germany is the most populous country in Europe.

The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.

The power of *edit*Humanity*edit* is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a *edit*Human*edit* person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it

There we go, lol...

Hmm? yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.


Hmmmmm?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


I'll second the lolwut.

The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.
yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.

2.Again, yea. After germanies considerable losses from ww1 and destroyed economy there population was anything but thriving.

3.And at the time germany had very little trade partners

thank you for that uterly useless and unwanted post.
Sweetie, you just don't know shit about Germany. So fuck off. :rolleyes:

Hmm?The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.

That sounds like just about every nation-state and ethnic group. Insert the US, France, the UK, or the Jews instead of Germany and it would still work. :p

The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.

Now you get a lolwut?

Yeah, Germany is a large country with a martial history (Prussians, and used to be a lot of principalities that fought one another). The US doesn't have that great martial history, we have a history of bringing a lot of manpower and manufacturing to bear until we crush our opponents. When the other side has agreed to play our game, we win. There really haven't been the visionaries in our military that there have been in others, but that doesn't matter as much because we can win our way (and now we can just out-gun the hell out of anybody). :mp5::mp5::mp5: :D

As for your characterization of the country itself, I'd have to agree with the other posters here: huh?

The power of *edit*Humanity*edit* is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a *edit*Human*edit* person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it

There we go, lol...

Damn you for beating me to the punch. :D

Sweetie, you just don't know shit about Germany. So fuck off. :rolleyes: thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'

yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.

2.Again, yea. After germanies considerable losses from ww1 and destroyed economy there population was anything but thriving.

3.And at the time germany had very little trade partners

More farmland? Germany has often had an abundance of farmland (except that they have typically burgeoning populations, which makes it seem less true).

Also, WWI started because Wilhelm II was an idiot and didn't listen to the man who made Germany.

thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'

Yeah, and at the same time you've demonstrated a very shallow understanding of both the wars and Germany as a whole. Just take a seat for a second and breath.

It might be their Awesome Grammar that does it, lol...

But really, most of those "allies" jump on the bandwagon because it looks like America's winning and they want to be part of the spoils that are divided...

Those people would have been just as likely to join Germany had they looked like they would win...

Id say they are the equal of Western Nations...not their better...and visa versa...

That's possibly the most American post I've ever read :)

A large part of America's power today is founded on little more than betting on Britain and France to win against Germany, making a financial killing, then jumping on the bandwagon at the end to get political and military clout on top of financial and industrial.


Back on topic, I have never really understood Germany's general failure to mobilise the potential of the female workforce in the Great War. How much might it have helped to have proper women's land armies operating during the desperate days of shortage that wore them down so?

Yeah, Germany is a large country with a martial history (Prussians, and used to be a lot of principalities that fought one another). The US doesn't have that great martial history, we have a history of bringing a lot of manpower and manufacturing to bear until we crush our opponents. When the other side has agreed to play our game, we win. There really haven't been the visionaries in our military that there have been in others, but that doesn't matter as much because we can win our way (and now we can just out-gun the hell out of anybody). :mp5::mp5::mp5: :D

As for your characterization of the country itself, I'd have to agree with the other posters here: huh?
well i am only refering to germany during 1916-1945 not modern germany. out of all the books and documentaries ive seen/read germany has been heavily strained on resources even with there industrial achievements

thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'What's "unwitty" is your obvious lack of knowledge of Germany and its history. Before you ask questions you should inform yourself.

yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.
I would not be surprised if Germany's agriculture was struggling in 1916, what with millions of workers being drafted to the front, and the crippling blockade and all...

2.Again, yea. After germanies considerable losses from ww1 and destroyed economy there population was anything but thriving.
Still the largest in Europe by some margin, and growth rates recovered after the effects of the depression were gone. Losing wars and collapsing economies tend to put people off making lots of little kids.

3.And at the time germany had very little trade partners
What time? Germany has been variously the largest and second-largest economy in Europe basically since some time shortly after 1871. That necessarily means that they trade a lot. So present some evidence.

Now you get a lolwut?
I better. No one ever appreciates what I do.

Anyways: very topical...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,550107,00.html
What Makes the Average German Tick?

What do Germans earn? How much do they drink? How loyal are they? How often do they lie? What do they believe in? What are they afraid of? How often do they have sex? How do they die? A new SPIEGEL report gives a unique picture of the average German and how they think, live and love.

thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'

Well, you've asserted, and maintained a very uneducated stance on history, which isn't a huge problem in and of itself, and yeah, he was a little rude for what the situation demands, but taking that breather would be a good idea, I'm sure you can pick up a more accurate picture as people keep posting, and provide a mosaic of history to see.

Yeah, and at the same time you've demonstrated a very shallow understanding of both the wars and Germany as a whole. Just take a seat for a second and breath.
well then do explain. as i said. if your going to call me ignorant. might as well tell me why and teach it to me.

well i am only refering to germany during 1916-1945 not modern germany. out of all the books and documentaries ive seen/read germany has been heavily strained on resources even with there industrial achievements

Yeah, that's because they don't have the other raw resources that the people they're facing do. The US is an anomaly in their apparent abundance of anything that a country would need when running a war.

At the beginning of both those wars the Germans were cut off from their colonies (WWI), or general overseas trade (both WWI and WWII) by the Royal Navy, and couldn't break the blockade. It was a losing battle unless they could get to other resources to continue their war machine (They may have been running out of food at some point, but going to war will do that, you don't have people centralized in cities anymore, they're spread out along a battle line) which happened in WWI and helped lead to their downfall.

In WWII the Germans wanted oil to run their army (they used a lot of it with all their tanks and planes and such) and that influenced Hitler into attacking Russia (easier access to the middle east and other oil producing areas) as well as launching the battle of the bulge, which ended up being a disaster and hastening their downfall. Shortages also take place when you have millions of tons of bombs being dropped on your railroads/factories/trucks/people who make the goods.

The point is that the Germans have more than enough resources to run their country in peacetime, wartime inevitably causes shortages. They did not start these wars so that they could get more resources (they didn't even start WWI)

well then do explain. as i said. if your going to call me ignorant. might as well tell me why and teach it to me.

aww, you left. I was going to teach you something.

1. WW1 1914-1918.

2. Who started WW2 if not germany?

aww, you left. I was going to teach you something.

Wow, this post served up a steaming plate of pwn. Lol.

And what do you mean Germany didn't start WWI? They signed a completely fair, and reasonable treaty that said so. What, did you think they were the fourth force to act? Pssh... thats ridiculous, and all of us good ol' Americans know it! :p

(of course, I am being sarcastic for the entirety of the second paragraph, but wanted to clarify, otherwise everyone would doubtless pwn me, and my facetious argument)

1. WW1 1914-1918.

2. Who started WW2 if not germany?

2. What? who ever claimed Germany did not start WWII? Although, since I believe that our (America's) joining the war was the 'start' of WWII, wouldn't that make us (America) in a sense the starters? Before then it was really more of a trans-European war.

Yes, of course I believe Germany 'started' it, by being the general aggressor to the conflict, although I do have to say, Poland got pwned... in fact, that might bethe most epic pwn ever, disagreements welcome.

EDIT: I guess Delator's post (the next one down) makes more sense anyway, so edit America as the starter, even though it was pretty much jest anyway.

Who started WW2 if not germany?

Japan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Japan.C2.B4s_invasion_of_China

Wow, this post served up a steaming plate of pwn. Lol.

And what do you mean Germany didn't start WWI? They signed a completely fair, and reasonable treaty that said so. What, did you think they were the fourth force to act? Pssh... thats ridiculous, and all of us good ol' Americans know it! :p

(of course, I am being sarcastic for the entirety of the second paragraph, but wanted to clarify, otherwise everyone would doubtless pwn me, and my facetious argument)

Well, they didn't start WWI by their own in any case. They had a lot of help from overeager diplomats making a hell of a lot of treaties before the war without thinking what would happen if someone went to war, and people with mustaches. Whatever happened to German mustaches?

EDIT: Oh, and yes, we did serve up some serious pwnage. For those of you out there wanting to make really broad statements about a country's history with information taken from two history channel specials, do a wiki search first or something. And then don't post.

Wow, America's joining was the start of WWII? Tell it to Europe, Asia, Africa, Canada, and Australasia!

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

They lost. Almost winning in war is like almost surviving a bear attack. Germany are losers in war. They make great cars and smoked meats though so I love them anyway. :fluffle:

They lost. Almost winning in war is like almost surviving a bear attack. Germany are losers in war. They make great cars and smoked meats though so I love them anyway. :fluffle:

Yeah, they gave the bear one hell of a limp both times though. And they haven't been allowed to play with their toys since then, I wouldn't call them losers at war at all. They were awfully good at it before the world wars.

EDIT: And, there are definitely wars that you can almost win and come out alright of afterwards. Back in the day, winning a few battles was all about getting better position at the bargaining table, because if you were feared the other side would give you a better deal even if they won. The Germans got screwed after both wars, but they were in bad situations after both world wars, which they arguably (at least in the case of WWI) could have kept fighting from.

World War I in particular amuses me.
Germany only fought a battle on their own land the first 6 months of the war, and they succeeded in beating Russia. By all accounts they really should have received favorable terms of the treaty.

The start of WWI was Germany incursion in to Russia (in response to Russia mobilizing their troops). However there was a reason Germany was eager to Invade Russia, and it was because the Russian empire was about to collapse and Germany feared having to deal with the mess so close to Germany proper.
however there was a problem by and large prior to WWI German generals didn't fear they could muster enough support from the populace as the Germans were know as peaceful people and being lovers more then fighters(seriously look at movies,plays with German characters made prior to WWI). However the killing of the Arch Duke inflamed the German public enough to do something about it that the generals advised now would be the best time to make moves on Russia even if it had not collapsed yet.

Wow, America's joining was the start of WWII? Tell it to Europe, Asia, Africa, Canada, and Australasia!

Oh, everyone knows the wars weren't important until the US joined. At least that's what I've been led to believe in my history classes. My teachers wouldn't lie to me, would they (I always thought it was interesting how Pearl Harbor was characterized as being this sort of malicious strike out of the blue with no warning and little justification from Japan, because the teachers never took the time to explain the war in the way they should have to make their actions make sense)?

Well...it's hard to say Germans were in shortage...

During both World Wars they were the most populous country in Europe.
They always had plenty of farmland ( particulari with the large empire of the Second Reich )
They were the first industrial and economical power in Europe in 1914, and weren't that bad in 1939...

They have a long military tradition, but so are France and Britain.

But in both wars they were the most "militarized" country in their spirit and mind, the Heer gets all the obeissance needed: some years before World War One, a marginal have stolen the uniform of a Prussian officer, then reeched the nearest garnison and ordered a patrol to follow him.
Then he head on the greatest bank of Berlin and asked the keys of the treasure, without any writen order.
He received it without a question.

I think this is eloquent enough, no ?

Besides, "almost" winning a war is a dangerous term...
Napoleon almost won at Waterloo.
During 25 years the French Revolutionnaries and Imperial armies crushed anyone in land battles in Europe, fighting every other European countries, who were backed up by the greatest economical power of the time ( Britain of course ), won 6 wars, fought on 4 or 5 fronts at any time... despite this, we only "almost" prevailed, at the end.

On the other hand, Germany never fought alone ( even in 1870-1871, during the first months they benefits from strong commercial supports, because Britain and Russia thought France would won and would then resume the Napoleonian dream ), was always backep up by powerful allies, especially in the first stages of the war...don't you remember that USSR was giving oil and steel to Germany until the Barbarossa offensive ?
That they were allied then to Japan ?
That during the First World War they were allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire, who was hardly a pitifull one...oh, and with the Ottoman Empire, also :]

I think that the German Army is fascinating because they were wearing damn fucking cool uniforms, and have great tanks and planes designers.
Also because they were the "ultimate evil", and that we still are suffering from this propaganda.

Well everyone knows Germany is "Teh pwnage".

Well, Germany WOULD be "teh pawnage" if its most succesful leaders wern't so greedy

While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population.

Eh?
Germany, no farm land? Low population? What about Italy then?
Btw, and how about mines?

Looking at european countries from an american point of view can lead to poor understanding.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinionsI find the notion that Germany had a low population amusing. At the beginning of each world war, Germany had a population a bit less than 70 million, whereas the United Kingdom and France are about 10 million short of that today.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

well, avoiding the barrage of "lolwuts" in this thread, i've often thought something similar. the country was facing war on its east and western fronts, against the USSR and the Allies, and yet it still held its own, with a little help from its own allies. they did have a head start on gearing up the war machine, undoubtedly, but its always struck me as impressive.

then again others have done the same thing, too. Napoleon springs to mind, for example.


But really, most of those "allies" jump on the bandwagon because it looks like America's winning and they want to be part of the spoils that are divided...


i can't quite believe i just read something so retarded.

But in both wars they were the most "militarized" country in their spirit and mind, the Heer gets all the obeissance needed: some years before World War One, a marginal have stolen the uniform of a Prussian officer, then reeched the nearest garnison and ordered a patrol to follow him.
Then he head on the greatest bank of Berlin and asked the keys of the treasure, without any writen order.
He received it without a question.That's not what happened at all. The "Hauptmann von Köpenick" was jailed for fraud, then jailed for breaking into an office where he wanted to obtain a passport to leave Germany, on the grounds that he couldn't get a job because he had been in jail. In that particular jail, the head warden believed strict military discipline was the key to rehabilitating the prisoners. Armed with the knowledge of how to command and obey, the guy commandeered a troop of soldiers in Berlin and arrested a local officiary in an attempt to get a passport. He went to the wrong building, though, and that plan failed as well. However, Kaiser Wilhelm II thought it was so funny, he pardoned him and gave him a passport.

i can't quite believe i just read something so retarded.You can't seriously argue that the South American and Middle Eastern nations that jumped on the bandwagon after D-Day did it for altruistic reasons.

That's not what happened at all. The "Hauptmann von Köpenick" was jailed for fraud, then jailed for breaking into an office where he wanted to obtain a passport to leave Germany, on the grounds that he couldn't get a job because he had been in jail. In that particular jail, the head warden believed strict military discipline was the key to rehabilitating the prisoners. Armed with the knowledge of how to command and obey, the guy commandeered a troop of soldiers in Berlin and arrested a local officiary in an attempt to get a passport. He went to the wrong building, though, and that plan failed as well. However, Kaiser Wilhelm II thought it was so funny, he pardoned him and gave him a passport.

Ha arrested the mayor, and got away with the Stadtkasse (no idea how to translate that one), which had a good bit of money in it, too. He claimed he was really only after the passport, but had committed a blunder because as he discovered Koepenick didn't have a passport office. I'm not sure if he ever returned the money, though ;)

I have to sat Germany screwed itself over in both world wars.

WWI, fighting on two fronts meant they couldn't bring their forces to bear on one front. The Eastern Front only collasped briefly due to a certain uprising in Russia, but fighting renewed a few months later. By the end of 1917 when Germany was able to bring a large part of its army to the Western Front, its forces were pretty much worn out and the British blockade had already taken its toll.

WW2, 1940 Germany had no real invasion plans and very little equipment for a sea borne invasion of Britian. The German Navy only numbered a small amout of warships and a hell of a lot of u-boats, even though plans were in motion to upgrade and enlarge the Navy which would have taken until 1945. If Hitler had listened to the Admirals and waited until 1945, the German Navy would have been able to go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy and win.

Also he should have been much smarter and honored the Non-aggression-pact with the USSR for a while longer.

You can't seriously argue that the South American and Middle Eastern nations that jumped on the bandwagon after D-Day did it for altruistic reasons.

by allies i figured he meant Britain & France, etc. if that's not what he meant then i'll apologise, but if that is what he meant i stand by the word retarded.

where did those nations enter the discussion?

Well, WWI maybe, but WWII America was there prettymuch from the onset...its just that we werent able to get into France until '44...but it wasnt long, a year, before Germany was Crushed...

Maybe Germany should get better friends, lol...

The USA didn't enter the war until 1941 two years after the war had started, yeah that's from the outset. Bear in mind I am not saying the America had no influence in the war or wasn't important for the war effort

More farmland? Germany has often had an abundance of farmland (except that they have typically burgeoning populations, which makes it seem less true).

Also, WWI started because Wilhelm II was an idiot and didn't listen to the man who made Germany.

Well that is not the reason, WWI started due to a Serb terrorist killing the Arch Duke of Austria, after which (without going into specifics) started a chain reaction of treaties being enacted between many different European powers.

WW2, 1940 Germany had no real invasion plans and very little equipment for a sea borne invasion of Britian. The German Navy only numbered a small amout of warships and a hell of a lot of u-boats, even though plans were in motion to upgrade and enlarge the Navy which would have taken until 1945. If Hitler had listened to the Admirals and waited until 1945, the German Navy would have been able to go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy and win.

Well Hitler never wanted to invade Britain anyway, he hoped that they would ally with him and attack the USSR as the communists were the real enemy to Hitler.

Hitler made many mistakes during the war. Of course I wonder if the whole thing could have been avoided if Chamberlain was a bit more aggressive in stopping Hitler when he started to take back German territory (Sudetentland and Austria) rather than waiting for Poland. Of course if we are going to do that then the whole thing could have been avoided if the French and British weren't so hung up on exacting as much revenge as possible during the make up of the Treaty of Versailles.

yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.I can imagine that it was struggling after the war started in 1914.
2.Again, yea. After germanies considerable losses from ww1 and destroyed economy there population was anything but thriving.Which is entirely irrelevant, seeing as France and the United Kingdom were not doing any better.
3.And at the time germany had very little trade partnersIt's a bit difficult to trade with someone when the British won't let you.
thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'He's got a point though. For someone that's been studying the two world wars, you know surprisingly little about Germany's part in them.
well i am only refering to germany during 1916-1945 not modern germany. out of all the books and documentaries ive seen/read germany has been heavily strained on resources even with there industrial achievementsMost places are heavily strained on resources. There was rationing going on in the US, and they weren't even being cut off from international trade.
World War I in particular amuses me.
Germany only fought a battle on their own land the first 6 months of the war, and they succeeded in beating Russia. By all accounts they really should have received favorable terms of the treaty. Brest-Litovsk was pretty damn favorable to the Germans.
The start of WWI was Germany incursion in to Russia (in response to Russia mobilizing their troops). However there was a reason Germany was eager to Invade Russia, and it was because the Russian empire was about to collapse and Germany feared having to deal with the mess so close to Germany proper. What the fuck are you talking about?

A very simplified chronology of the start of WWI:


The Arch-Duke of Austria-Hungary is killed in a Serbian sponsored terror attack.
Kaiser Wilhelm II supports Austria-Hungary teaching Serbia a lesson. Unconditionally.
Austria-Hungary makes demands that Serbia would never meet in order to have an excuse to go to war.
Serbia meets the demands, but Austria-Hungary declares war anyway.
Germany declares war on Russia and France, because Russia will declare war on Austria-Hungary and France is allied with Russia, and the only way to beat both is by beating France first by beating Belgium first and then facing Russia.
Germany invades France and Belgium, which causes the UK to go to war as guarantor of Belgian neutrality.
Germany nearly takes Paris, but is stopped by a combination of over extending its logistics and having to pull out troops in order to fend off the Russians that mobilized faster than expected and are threatening to overrun East Prussia.


Now, as you can see, I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone would claim that German forces first entered Russia, when this was not the case, that Willy (Kaiser Wilhelm II) saw Nicky's (Tsar Nicholas' II) empire collapsing, when this was only the case because the war was unpopular and caused bread prices to go up and unrest was in part fueled by the Germans sending Lenin into Russia. What you said makes no historical sense whatsoever.
however there was a problem by and large prior to WWI German generals didn't fear they could muster enough support from the populace as the Germans were know as peaceful people and being lovers more then fighters(seriously look at movies,plays with German characters made prior to WWI). However the killing of the Arch Duke inflamed the German public enough to do something about it that the generals advised now would be the best time to make moves on Russia even if it had not collapsed yet.There wasn't really a single country in Europe who's populace wasn't in some way looking forward to the Great War, even if they became disillusioned shortly after.

Also he should have been much smarter and honored the Non-aggression-pact with the USSR for a while longer.
Stalin was going to break that as soon as he felt he was ready. In reality, it was only a matter of who would break it first. The USSR was woefully unprepared at the time Hitler invaded; waiting longer would not have increased the likelihood of success one bit.
by allies i figured he meant Britain & France, etc. if that's not what he meant then i'll apologise, but if that is what he meant i stand by the word retarded.

where did those nations enter the discussion?I hate to say this because I love and respect you, PM, but your definition of "the Allies" appears to be out of sync with the generally accepted one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II). The Allies of World War 2 have always been all countries that ended up fighting Nazi Germany. World War 1 is a bit trickier, but the situation is similar.

Well that is not the reason, WWI started due to a Serb terrorist killing the Arch Duke of Austria, after which (without going into specifics) started a chain reaction of treaties being enacted between many different European powers.Quite frankly, yes it was. It was Kaiser Bill's stupidity and arrogance that allowed that system of treaties to come about into first place, and his blank cheque to the Austro-Hungarians that gave the Danube Monarchy the reassurance they needed to risk war with Russia.
Well Hitler never wanted to invade Britain anyway, he hoped that they would ally with him and attack the USSR as the communists were the real enemy to Hitler.Bullshit, and I'm pretty sure we've been through this before. Hitler wanted Great Britain as an ally at first, but Churchill buried those hopes quite well. Then Hitler drew up plans for invading Britain, and scrapped them when the Luftwaffe appeared to fail in bombing Britain into submission. Claiming that Hitler never wanted to invade Britain is erroneous, since while Hitler didn't want to invade Britain in the first place, he changed his mind later.

I hate to say this because I love and respect you, PM, but your definition of "the Allies" appears to be out of sync with the generally accepted one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II). The Allies of World War 2 have always been all countries that ended up fighting Nazi Germany. World War 1 is a bit trickier, but the situation is similar.

fair enough... perhaps i was thinking more of the WW1 situation, indeed. i think i was referring to the allies in Western Europe (the original allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Original_Allies) and the oslo group) and not pan-american union allies and others.

i'll just put the confusion down to driving the better part of 500 miles in the last 3 days :D

The USA didn't enter the war until 1941 two years after the war had started, yeah that's from the outset. Bear in mind I am not saying the America had no influence in the war or wasn't important for the war effort


Five years after WWII started, actually. Japan started WWII in 1936.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

I doubt the almost the ENTIRE world was at war. What about the the Axis (the Eastern Bloc for a time was part of this alliance due to an immense dislike of their Soviet overlords) in WWII? Are or telling me that the Germans were completely without allies?

They had allies in WWI, but back then, people assumed war was short and sweet and didn't anticipate trench warfare. The Germans and their allies would have been fine if not for the prolonged war. The only reason the stalemate ended was because of the numbers contributed by America who was pissed over the sinking of the Lusitania. If the Germans hadn't sunk it, the war would have drawn out longer with a potentially different ending due to a current existing policy of American isolationism.

Also, the British and her colonial forces could have overwhelmed the Germans if not for the fact that the British had Tripoli to contend with as well as the Ottoman Turks in the MidEast, eventually leading to the acquisition of The British Mandate of Palestine. During WWI, the Germans weren't the only ones with their hands in two honey pots, the British were just as guilty.

Also, you have to remember, that there was a turning point in the war and it came when the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917 and executed the Tsar and his family, effectively recalling the Russian army and conceding to the Germans. This would have worked out in Germany's favour if they hadn't sunk the Lusitania.

There are plenty of ways in which the war would have been different, but the Germans were not short on man power or farmland. The US didn't always have a massive economy. The economy in the US only really took off during the prohibition of the 20s, only to crash in 1929, eventually leading to the Great Depression that lasted into WWII. Other economies recovered quickly because they found jobs created due to wartime.

Also, during Hitler's reign, there was a massive birth explosion due to misogynist policies. Women were prevented from holding jobs and at the same time, families were heavily rewarded for every child they had.

You know what factor on the German homefront that contributed to Germany's eventual defeat? The fact that there was no rationing until the last few months of the war; 1944/45, yet other nations who were at war with the German forces had been rationing since the start of the war.

Five years after WWII started, actually. Japan started WWII in 1936.

And don't forget the Soviets and the Germans were testing their shit out in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), with the Germans aiding Franco. And the Slovak-Hungarian War fought from March 24-April 3 1939 (Hungary had mobilised forces at the request of Germany). See, other wars were ongoing...

Sweetie, you just don't know shit about Germany. So fuck off. :rolleyes:

United Beleriand, normally I'd just warn you to cut out the flaming. However, as I did that earlier this week (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13635858&postcount=404) and you didn't listen, take two days off.

thank you again. for yet another unwitty, utterly useless. and now extremely rude comment. and yet you still have given no information of why you are flaming me. i rather get flamed by some1 who knows what there talking about instead of just 'LOLZ YEA UR DUMB'

Karalk, replying to a flame can end up tipping you into hot water too. Stick to the argument.

I can imagine that it was struggling after the war started in 1914.




The Arch-Duke of Austria-Hungary is killed in a Serbian sponsored terror attack.
Kaiser Wilhelm II supports Austria-Hungary teaching Serbia a lesson. Unconditionally.
Austria-Hungary makes demands that Serbia would never meet in order to have an excuse to go to war.
Serbia meets the demands, but Austria-Hungary declares war anyway.
Germany declares war on Russia and France, because Russia will declare war on Austria-Hungary and France is allied with Russia, and the only way to beat both is by beating France first by beating Belgium first and then facing Russia.
Germany invades France and Belgium, which causes the UK to go to war as guarantor of Belgian neutrality.
Germany nearly takes Paris, but is stopped by a combination of over extending its logistics and having to pull out troops in order to fend off the Russians that mobilized faster than expected and are threatening to overrun East Prussia.




My fault should have clarified Russia beat Germany. then the treated that ended the war with the western powers was surprisingly unfavorable.

I really disagree with the Arch-Duke's murder being the starting point of the war. It really just doesn't make sense, why send royalty in to a territory you are opening hostile with, and more over let him just drive around aimlessly?

Not to mention both Germany and French leadership was quoted as saying something along the lines of Go to war a for a scrap of paper? you got to be kidding, which would lead to the conclusion they had motives and the those scraps of paper were just there to justify going to war not to cause it.

Quite frankly, yes it was. It was Kaiser Bill's stupidity and arrogance that allowed that system of treaties to come about into first place, and his blank cheque to the Austro-Hungarians that gave the Danube Monarchy the reassurance they needed to risk war with Russia.

Well at least you clarified your remark I will have to check over that. But had not a Serb killed the Arch Duke then WWI at the very least in the way it happened would not have started.But then again did he really have much say over the treaty with Belgium and Britain? Britain signed that treaty to ensure that neither the French or Germany would get complete control over the coast line, thus when war broke out and Germany invaded them the British (back when being British meant something) had to honour their promise regardless of what they cared about.

Bullshit, and I'm pretty sure we've been through this before. Hitler wanted Great Britain as an ally at first, but Churchill buried those hopes quite well. Then Hitler drew up plans for invading Britain, and scrapped them when the Luftwaffe appeared to fail in bombing Britain into submission. Claiming that Hitler never wanted to invade Britain is erroneous, since while Hitler didn't want to invade Britain in the first place, he changed his mind later.

Oh I am sure we have. His original plan was to bomb the airfields and military institutions in Britain so they wouldn't harass him while he focused on his true objective the communists. Unfortunately a bomber group got lost in the fog and bombed London, thus began revenge attacks where cities were focused rather than military objectives. Hitler should have invaded Britain but he never did want to.

fair enough... perhaps i was thinking more of the WW1 situation, indeed. i think i was referring to the allies in Western Europe (the original allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Original_Allies) and the oslo group) and not pan-american union allies and others.

i'll just put the confusion down to driving the better part of 500 miles in the last 3 days :DYup. There's no way France, Poland, and the UK can be considered part of the group that jumped onto the bandwagon after the US joined the war =P

Most powerful nation of the world is the US. No way to beat a country where lives Superman.

I really disagree with the Arch-Duke's murder being the starting point of the war. It really just doesn't make sense, why send royalty in to a territory you are opening hostile with, and more over let him just drive around aimlessly?

Well as they had control of the area the Arch Duke and his advisers thought that they wouldn't be in serious danger. I seem to recall that on this same procession through the streets the terrorists and attempted to take his life a few times before, but he continued driving. Nowadays they would be behind bullet proof glass, the vehicle would be fitted with armour plating and run flat tyres, not to mention a large security contingent. It was the catalyst of the war, it may not make sense as to why he was there but nevertheless he was there.

Five years after WWII started, actually. Japan started WWII in 1936.

You can't really count that, it would be like counting Italy invading Ethiopia or the Spanish civil war (which had the Soviets and Germany supporting with troops and equipment either side).

The short answer to your question is 'No, they are not the most powerful country in history.'

Germany has a long-standing history of being somewhat renegade, but it is not known for pointlessly starting wars and conflicts. In fact, one could argue that most of Germany's disputes throughout history were not the Germans as a whole entity, but the actions and beliefs of a select few international politicians and nobles who all fought among themselves, dragging the rest of the country along with it (See: Every war ever fought concerning Germany.)

As far as its military muscle, Germany didn't have any spectacular military until after World War 2 and the Nazis. The fact is that the German military was exceptionally well-trained during the Nazi rule, and Hitler just happened to be a brilliant strategist (towards the beginning; before he went crazy). In fact, it could be argued that the reason Germany didn't win WW2 is because of a series of events that postponed the invasion of Russia because German forces had to come to the aid of its allies (namely Italy's defeats in northern Africa and Greece.) Had everything gone according to plan, Hitler would have invaded Russia in the late summer instead of the dead of winter and easily bulldozed the Russian Army. As it was, Russia could barely defend itself, even with climate advantage.
Because of the immense technological advancements made during World War 2 on Germany's part, it has a great wealth of military technology, but it's not the greatest army in the world, by any means.

On that note, I would argue that the greatest Armed Force of all time were the Ancient Greek Spartans or Romans; of common era, the British Royal Navy. But it's all open to interpretation.

I don't believe in the moniker "most powerful ever," because there's always someone bigger and badder just around the corner. One major theme of history is the rise and fall of powers, starting with the first hegemonic rulers in Sumerian mud-cities to the United States of today.

In terms of Germany, there was an interesting book I leafed through about six months ago called "The myth of German military superiority" or some such thing. The basic premise being that the Germans, for all their vaunted martial prowess, have rarely succeeded in doing anything with it other than losing, with few notable exceptions in history. And I assume we're talking mostly about modern Germany, so I can exclude things like the Teutoburg Forest, the Sack of Rome, and Frederick the Great (technically a Prussian first).

The only major victory the German nation has won since the 1700s was the Franco-Prussian war, and what did it get them? A pedestal so shaky they fell off in 1918, and again in 1945. While they might start strong, the German military machine has habitually fallen apart. It happened in Saxony when Napoleon invaded, it happened when the Kaiser refused to sue for peace, and it happened when Hitler went mad and blew his brains out.

In historical terms, the Spartans are completely overrated. They had one great victory that gave them a reputation, and then blew it all after the Peloponnesian War0 even though they won, Athens still came out on top! In my mind, the military force that achieved the most in the time it had were the armies of the Tang Dynasty in China. The most potent military force thus far, of course, were the Mongols, though they didn't last.

The reasons Germany didn't win WW2 are as follows
1. They couldn't get the Japanese to attack Russia from Siberia as the was nothing there for the Japanese to plunder.
2. They never put a nuclear warhead on the V rockets.
3. There was no strategic plan amongst the Axis powers.
4. They had hangups over not invading neutral countries like Turkey and Ireland. In the case of Turkey if they'd done it they'd have been able to tap into the oil fields of the Caucasus which would have been well enough to sustain them all the way to moscow( which they stopped only 12 miles from without the extra oil anyway), not to mention they'd have caught the Russians in a classic pincer movement.

Excuse me all but before you damn Germany for collapse and short term success, remember one thing, without the Prussians(i.e. Germans) the British would have lost Waterloo and French would probably be the major commercial language today.
So thank Germany for ensuring English as the major commercial language.

The reasons Germany didn't win WW2 are as follows
1. They couldn't get the Japanese to attack Russia from Siberia as the was nothing there for the Japanese to plunder.

This is tied into the Japanese interests of the 30s, if the Army Club had gotten their way in Tokyo Russia would have been invaded rather than the Pacific Isles. By the time the Germans had invaded Russia the Japanese had no toops to commit to any attacks on Siberia- it would have meant the collapse of one of their fronts, either in China or in the Pacific.

2. They never put a nuclear warhead on the V rockets.

...which was impossible, considering they never developed any nuclear weapons.

3. There was no strategic plan amongst the Axis powers.

Oh yes there was! It went something like "We Germans will use the Italians like cannon fodder and prop them up, and you little yellow rotters over in Nippon will sting the Americans so we can bugger their nancy-boy English allies!"

4. They had hangups over not invading neutral countries like Turkey and Ireland. In the case of Turkey if they'd done it they'd have been able to tap into the oil fields of the Caucasus which would have been well enough to sustain them all the way to moscow( which they stopped only 12 miles from without the extra oil anyway), not to mention they'd have caught the Russians in a classic pincer movement.

Hangups which were completely and utterly justified. Opening not a third, but a fourth front in the East would have been even more devastating to their organization, stretching troops thin. The Turks were weak, but not that weak, and it would have caused the Germans serious pain to trek across Anatolia to the Caucasus, not to mention divert troops from active combat in Africa, garisson in Europe, and police-actions in the Balkans. Rural Turks are a hardy bunch and dangerous guerrillas when it comes down to it. Opening another front in Turkey would have ended the war even quicker.

Getting access to Turkish pipelines through means other than conquest? That would have been golden.

Excuse me all but before you damn Germany for collapse and short term success, remember one thing, without the Prussians(i.e. Germans) the British would have lost Waterloo and French would probably be the major commercial language today.
So thank Germany for ensuring English as the major commercial language.

... nevermind the fact that until the mid-20th century, French was the generally-accepted diplomatic language of government.

At the risk of reducing this thread to an example of Godwin's law...

Too late. Way too late. someone should just drop a 50 hitler post and be done with it.

what are your opinions

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AngryGerman.gif Ze spellink is terrible!

i can't quite believe i just read something so retarded.

Happened in WWI.

Well as they had control of the area the Arch Duke and his advisers thought that they wouldn't be in serious danger. I seem to recall that on this same procession through the streets the terrorists and attempted to take his life a few times before, but he continued driving. Nowadays they would be behind bullet proof glass, the vehicle would be fitted with armour plating and run flat tyres, not to mention a large security contingent. It was the catalyst of the war, it may not make sense as to why he was there but nevertheless he was there.



You can't really count that, it would be like counting Italy invading Ethiopia or the Spanish civil war (which had the Soviets and Germany supporting with troops and equipment either side).
Yes because a militarily occupied city like Sarajevo or Baghdad is safe for world leaders to stroll around in.
In my opinion The arch duke was sent by Austria in the hopes something like this would happen. HE was considered the most expendable member of royalty because, he had not political skill and his two past times were hunting animals and hunting women.

My fault should have clarified Russia beat Germany. then the treated that ended the war with the western powers was surprisingly unfavorable.One can plainly understand why France and the UK wanted Germany beaten down. Everyone expected the Russians to be the biggest and baddest based on manpower.
I really disagree with the Arch-Duke's murder being the starting point of the war. It really just doesn't make sense, why send royalty in to a territory you are opening hostile with, and more over let him just drive around aimlessly?It certainly was the starting point of the war. That's historical fact. The backdrop of secret treaties and the rivalry betwen the Great Powers was the powderkeg and the assassination of the Archduke was the spark that blew it.
Also, you make no sense yet again. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo, Bosnia (which had been annexed by Austria-Hungary a short while back), on a mission to grant the local peoples more autonomy to avoid Austria-Hungary fracturing. In other words: not hostile territory.
Not to mention both Germany and French leadership was quoted as saying something along the lines of Go to war a for a scrap of paper? you got to be kidding, which would lead to the conclusion they had motives and the those scraps of paper were just there to justify going to war not to cause it.The war was going to happen even if the crisis in Sarajevo had been averted. The Great Powers were itching for war. However, the Sarajevo assassination is what set it off.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realized its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at America they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions

Technically, they weren't (and aren't) the most powerful country in the world. Second, America isn't always "backed up by tons of allies" you have to examine exactly how much each ally contributes. After all, some of the Coalition Partners in the War on Iraq have sent as little as 10 soldiers or just support staff.

So it all depends on your definition of "powerful".

Yes because a militarily occupied city like Sarajevo or Baghdad is safe for world leaders to stroll around in.
In my opinion The arch duke was sent by Austria in the hopes something like this would happen. HE was considered the most expendable member of royalty because, he had not political skill and his two past times were hunting animals and hunting women.Bosnia and Herzegovina had been occupied by Austria for quite a while already. It wasn't the kind of military occupation comparable to Iraq. Aside from that, the Archduke went on his own, on a mission to ease tensions with the Croats and Serbs, against the wishes of the Emperor. Considering that he was the heir to the throne, the idea that he was the most expendable member of the royal family is laughable.

Maybe Germany should get better friends, lol...

I agree, italy sucked

If we stayed friends with comrade Stalin, no S.o.B would have dared invade us
:D

Yes because a militarily occupied city like Sarajevo or Baghdad is safe for world leaders to stroll around in.
In my opinion The arch duke was sent by Austria in the hopes something like this would happen. HE was considered the most expendable member of royalty because, he had not political skill and his two past times were hunting animals and hunting women.

As the heir to the throne, being Franz Josef's closest male heir as well as the most popular and well-liked member of the Hapsburg family, Franz Ferdinand was most certainly not "expendable." That term is reserved for the mentally insane Hapsburgs that were the product of years of inbreeding.

One can plainly understand why France and the UK wanted Germany beaten down. Everyone expected the Russians to be the biggest and baddest based on manpower.

Masurian Lakes and Tannenberg Forest certainly showed everyone what a marvel the Imperial Russian army was, and the only reason the Soviets got anywhere is because they realized their soldiers needed guns, tanks, and things to shoot out of them.

It certainly was the starting point of the war. That's historical fact. The backdrop of secret treaties and the rivalry betwen the Great Powers was the powderkeg and the assassination of the Archduke was the spark that blew it.

The Archduke's death is what set off the setting-off of the war, really. Don't forget the Austrians sent ultimata to the Serbs numerous times before mobilizing the army- which in turn forced the Serbs to mobilize. If it weren't for the Austrian government's insistence on an abridgement of Serb sovereignty and the Serbian refusal to acquiesce, there wouldn't have been a reason to call the alliance network into play.

Certainly, Franz Ferdinand's death was a huge hammerstroke for the start of the war. The damn thing had been on the horizon for years- since Germany annexed Schleswig-Holstein, since Tirpitz's building plans, since Britain's allliance with France... the list goes on. The unrelated event of a crazed Serbian revolutionary brought the entire house of cards, built up over decades of status quo. Metternich would have shat himself if he saw what the system he helped build had brought.

That's possibly the most American post I've ever read :)



You know, i dont think ive ever been as Patriotic, as i was after reading that, lol

Yes because a militarily occupied city like Sarajevo or Baghdad is safe for world leaders to stroll around in.
In my opinion The arch duke was sent by Austria in the hopes something like this would happen. HE was considered the most expendable member of royalty because, he had not political skill and his two past times were hunting animals and hunting women.

Well I don't know about that, but the fact of the matter is, is that he was there and was assassinated by a Serb terrorist and that started the Great War.

As the heir to the throne, being Franz Josef's closest male heir as well as the most popular and well-liked member of the Hapsburg family, Franz Ferdinand was most certainly not "expendable." That term is reserved for the mentally insane Hapsburgs that were the product of years of inbreeding.

Actually he had a lot of issues with his the Austrian royalty because he married Countess Sophie Chotek and even had to give up the right to inherirt the throne for himself and his children. Countess Sophie Chotek was apparently not royal enough, and many in the Hapsburg dynasty wanted to protect the purity of blood.


The Archduke's death is what set off the setting-off of the war, really. Don't forget the Austrians sent ultimata to the Serbs numerous times before mobilizing the army- which in turn forced the Serbs to mobilize. If it weren't for the Austrian government's insistence on an abridgement of Serb sovereignty and the Serbian refusal to acquiesce, there wouldn't have been a reason to call the alliance network into play.

Austria had been looking for an excuse to invade/conquer Serbia for quite sometime, and they were not very shy about it either.


Certainly, Franz Ferdinand's death was a huge hammerstroke for the start of the war. The damn thing had been on the horizon for years- since Germany annexed Schleswig-Holstein, since Tirpitz's building plans, since Britain's allliance with France... the list goes on. The unrelated event of a crazed Serbian revolutionary brought the entire house of cards, built up over decades of status quo. Metternich would have shat himself if he saw what the system he helped build had brought.

I'd say largest long term cause was the US refusal to step into a global leadership role that its economy required of it.

Certainly, Franz Ferdinand's death was a huge hammerstroke for the start of the war. The damn thing had been on the horizon for years- since Germany annexed Schleswig-Holstein, since Tirpitz's building plans, since Britain's allliance with France... the list goes on. The unrelated event of a crazed Serbian revolutionary brought the entire house of cards, built up over decades of status quo. Metternich would have shat himself if he saw what the system he helped build had brought.

Or to quote Blackadder:

Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Blackadder: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Blackadder: It was bollocks.

You can't really count that, it would be like counting Italy invading Ethiopia or the Spanish civil war (which had the Soviets and Germany supporting with troops and equipment either side).

I can't agree. The Ethiopian and Spanish wars were never part of any overall conflict; the Japanese Invasion of China flowed directly into WWII.

If you're going to deny Japan/China, you also need to deny Germany/Britain-France (and later Germany/Britain-Russia) , since that was solely a European war. I don't actually have a problem with that; but that would mean WWII proper starts in 1941, when Pearl Harbour brings the US in and unifies the two wars.

Actually he had a lot of issues with his the Austrian royalty because he married Countess Sophie Chotek and even had to give up the right to inherirt the throne for himself and his children. Countess Sophie Chotek was apparently not royal enough, and many in the Hapsburg dynasty wanted to protect the purity of blood.

This does not change the fact that he was still heir to the throne until he was shot. Crown Prince Rudolf, Franz Josef's only son, committed suicide, and Ferdinand was the closest male heir. The Hapsburg nobility may not have liked his wife, but the Hungarians loved him and his family wouldn't jeopardize the unity of the Empire on account of his wide.

Austria had been looking for an excuse to invade/conquer Serbia for quite sometime, and they were not very shy about it either.

Your point?

I'd say largest long term cause was the US refusal to step into a global leadership role that its economy required of it.

This is absolute bollocks. The US wasn't even a serious power until 1895, by which point the power blocs were almost formed. The US didn't have any power until they entered the war- that was what established America as a Great Power, not the economy. The war was entirely caused by a draconian system of alliances, ethnic and statist mistrust, and aristocrat dinosaurism.

And death. Can't forget death.

This is absolute bollocks. The US wasn't even a serious power until 1895, by which point the power blocs were almost formed. The US didn't have any power until they entered the war- that was what established America as a Great Power, not the economy. The war was entirely caused by a draconian system of alliances, ethnic and statist mistrust, and aristocrat dinosaurism.

And death. Can't forget death.

Not quite. The US is largely considered a Great Power after the US Civil War. However, it had no greater influence than Italy or Germany - the real big powers were Britain, France and Russia, the great colonial nations.

Actually he had a lot of issues with his the Austrian royalty because he married Countess Sophie Chotek and even had to give up the right to inherirt the throne for himself and his children. Countess Sophie Chotek was apparently not royal enough, and many in the Hapsburg dynasty wanted to protect the purity of blood. Source please.

Not quite. The US is largely considered a Great Power after the US Civil War. However, it had no greater influence than Italy or Germany - the real big powers were Britain, France and Russia, the great colonial nations.

I sincerely doubt this. The real act that solidified US power was the Spanish-American War. As late as 1870 the US Navy was struggling to keep up with Chile- Chile! National unity hadn't even been achieved yet. The US may have been established as a "power," but it wasn't until the Spanish-American war that showed Europe the strength of the US (and the subsequent Great White Fleet tours) was US standing as a Great Power really solidified.

Source please.

This is true, but only partly. Because Sophie wasn't high enough in rank, Franz Josef didn't want her to marry the future Emperor. The arguement that ensued ended with a morganatic marriage between the Archduke and Sophie- their children were not allowed to inherit his titles or throne.

He did not, however, give up the right of succession. Had he not been shot, he would have become the next Emperor of Austria-Hungary.

This is true, but only partly. Because Sophie wasn't high enough in rank, Franz Josef didn't want her to marry the future Emperor. The arguement that ensued ended with a morganatic marriage between the Archduke and Sophie- their children were not allowed to inherit his titles or throne.

He did not, however, give up the right of succession. Had he not been shot, he would have become the next Emperor of Austria-Hungary.That makes a lot more sense.

The power of Germany is to complain about everything and everyone all the time. Then, to demonstrate that they're so much better that all the people they complain about, occasionally a German person does something really great. Then they get back to complaining about how no one appreciates it.

Ich erhebe Beschwerde!
I raise complaint!

Ach ja - schööön auf gaaanz hohem Niveau klagen. Geht nix drüber!

I sincerely doubt this. The real act that solidified US power was the Spanish-American War. As late as 1870 the US Navy was struggling to keep up with Chile- Chile! National unity hadn't even been achieved yet. The US may have been established as a "power," but it wasn't until the Spanish-American war that showed Europe the strength of the US (and the subsequent Great White Fleet tours) was US standing as a Great Power really solidified.

It is true that the US Navy was considered poor among the Great Powers as late as the Great White Fleet, but that doesn't eliminate Great Power status - after all, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had relatively small fleets at that time also.

The US gained Great Power status mainly due to the strength of it's industry. By 1875, the United States was outproducing every european nation save Great Britain, and was not far behind there. Plus, the US had deployed more troops by the North during the Civil War than had been deployed period in the Franco-Prussian War - the last major european dust-up before the Crimea. The US, oddly enough, seemed to forget this - but you can be certain the other Great Powers did not.

Perhaps you're right. I haven't studied American History for three years now, so I'm a little rusty. Though it's certainly true that the Great White Fleet was just an excercise in futility- the whole damned thing was obsoleted by the time it set sail, what with Dreadnought and Jacky Fisher's drive, not to mention Tirpitz's escalation of the naval race.

I do remember that the World's Fairs held in the US established the American position as an industrial and social powerhouse, but the policy of isolation and non-involvement with Europe made it difficult to gauge. Certainly in terms of the Americas, the US was the "Great Power," but I believe that World War I was what firmly established the United States as the Great Power, with the Spanish-American War just setting the stage. The Civil War may have been the prelude to it all, but I don't think the US would have been a threat to the European powers, until the 1900s Germany and Great Britain were on the cusp of military technology. Hell, in 1870 the Jaegers were using needle guns to pick the French off- the first successful use of breechloading rifles in combat.

Perhaps you're right. I haven't studied American History for three years now, so I'm a little rusty. Though it's certainly true that the Great White Fleet was just an excercise in futility- the whole damned thing was obsoleted by the time it set sail, what with Dreadnought and Jacky Fisher's drive, not to mention Tirpitz's escalation of the naval race.

I do remember that the World's Fairs held in the US established the American position as an industrial and social powerhouse, but the policy of isolation and non-involvement with Europe made it difficult to gauge. Certainly in terms of the Americas, the US was the "Great Power," but I believe that World War I was what firmly established the United States as the Great Power, with the Spanish-American War just setting the stage. The Civil War may have been the prelude to it all, but I don't think the US would have been a threat to the European powers, until the 1900s Germany and Great Britain were on the cusp of military technology. Hell, in 1870 the Jaegers were using needle guns to pick the French off- the first successful use of breechloading rifles in combat.

Well, not quite. Breechloading Winchester lever action rifles were used by some Northern Cavalry towards the end of the US Civil War; however, these were bought by the unit rather than being standard issue. (As to how successful they were, accounts differ - if the Cavalry was dismounted they were much more effective. Given the North tended to use Cavalry as Dragoons, this was not as much of a handicap as it would have been for the South.)

You're right that the US had a power projection problem. But honestly, I couldn't see any of the european Great Powers being much of a threat to the US either.

Well, not quite. Breechloading Winchester lever action rifles were used by some Northern Cavalry towards the end of the US Civil War; however, these were bought by the unit rather than being standard issue. (As to how successful they were, accounts differ - if the Cavalry was dismounted they were much more effective. Given the North tended to use Cavalry as Dragoons, this was not as much of a handicap as it would have been for the South.)

You're right that the US had a power projection problem. But honestly, I couldn't see any of the european Great Powers being much of a threat to the US either.

You're correct; (I think they were the Spencer rifles) but it was the Germans who put them in the hands of ranger-style infantry units. The Franco-Prussian war should have been the complete end of cavalry tactics in modern warfare- the battle of Sedan pitted French Cuirassiers against Prussian skirmishers; the cavalry were obliterated by the Dreyse guns, which could fire 10-12 shots per minute. Sure, the Chassepot was better, but the Prussian tactical edge gave them the day.

Time and place is important. From the end of the Civil War until perhaps 1890, Great Britain could have caused great harm to the US forces. They had the experience from Africa and China. They had the naval edge. It's true, though, that only an alliance with other European powers could have threatened the US.

Good discussion. I like this. :D

You're correct; (I think they were the Spencer rifles) but it was the Germans who put them in the hands of ranger-style infantry units. The Franco-Prussian war should have been the complete end of cavalry tactics in modern warfare- the battle of Sedan pitted French Cuirassiers against Prussian skirmishers; the cavalry were obliterated by the Dreyse guns, which could fire 10-12 shots per minute. Sure, the Chassepot was better, but the Prussian tactical edge gave them the day.

Time and place is important. From the end of the Civil War until perhaps 1890, Great Britain could have caused great harm to the US forces. They had the experience from Africa and China. They had the naval edge. It's true, though, that only an alliance with other European powers could have threatened the US.

Good discussion. I like this. :D

So do I!

Given the US's reliance on foreign trade in the latter half of the 19th century, I'd have to agree that Great Britain could have inflicted tremendous damage on the US 1865-1890. Even after that, Great Britain retained a Naval edge until about 1912, though the Battlecruiser Doctrine would have cost them badly against US capital ships, as it eventually did against the Germans at Jutland.

They would have had to move fast to reinforce Canada, though, even with strong allies. Quebec City may have been near-invulnerable to 17th and 18th century weapons, but the arms of the late 19th would have been a quite different story.

France and Britain, together, might have been able to move against the US with some hope of sucess, but it's hard to see any of the other Great Powers managing it.

Ive been studying WW1 and WW2 and have realised its always germany and a couple allies versus almost literally the ENTIRE WORLD. Yet each time they Almost one except for some mistakes. Would you consider germany the most powerful country every? When i look at america they are always backed up by tens of allies and a massive economy. While in germany with virtually no farm land. Low population. And barely living off the land and still almost coming out in the end is quite a feat if u ask me. what are your opinions
Err... you have exposed a fundamental flaw in your own argument here.

"I've been studying the world wars, and it seems that Germany and a couple of allies almost always win". Aye, we've had two instances of Germany going it basically alone as a nation again a whole gamut of other nations. Two. This is not a large sample size.

In 1914 it had a whole load of coal, both proper coal and lignite, as well as massive iron ore deposits. Given that very few ships of the time actually used oil as a fuel, this meant that they were very much self-sufficient as a military power. They also had millions and millions of acres of forests, and their allies in Austria could provide them with tungsten, not that it was much used in World War 1.

Also, Germany is almost entirely flat apart from the Harz 'mountains' in the middle of the country and the Alps in darkest Bavaria, is mostly very fertile and is hence one of the best places to farm in all of Europe, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "virtually no farmland". The population is, and largely has been, the highest in Europe for one country (outside of Turkey, which is hardly in Europe at all). So again, no idea what you're talking about with 'Low population'.

By 1917, they couldn't win the First World War due to a total lack of force projection against the UK and US after we fought their navy back into port after Jutland, and had to eat nought but turnips for an entire winter, as well as generally lacking rubber.

In World War 2, they were essentially crippled, again, by a lack of force projection against the UK, and in 1941, against the US. They also ran out of tungsten and were using synthetic oil sometimes made of lignite, which is a poor enough fuel as it is, and even worse when turned into oil. That they lost at Moscow in 1941/42 was pretty bad indeed, since they had no chance to get it back afterwards, and the losses at Stalingrad and, more importantly, Kursk, meant that they were absolutely shafted from late 1943 onwards.

Germany Didn't have much trading partners back then, which is why In my opinion they lost. Now they corrected that mistake by Being the #1 exporter in the world ( last time I checked). The Only reason why the Allies ,being brits and yanks , won so easily on thier front is because they basically got beat up and mauled while fighting the russians. Germany would have never Won any World War, cuz they had to little ''weak'' allies and not enough of thier own strength to go against the whole world. Maybe they would of stood a chance if they didn't attack russia. Then also Stalin wouldn't have let Hitler be so strong.Also Hitler made alot of mistakes during the course of WW2 that led to thier defeat, but im too lazy to name em all

yes at the time around 1916 germanys agriculture was sturggling and thats one of the main reasons the war started. for more farm land.
...

Germany's agriculture was not struggling before the war. This was not why the war started. They had serious problems post-Jutland because we completely blockaded Germany both with mines and with the Royal Navy kicking about stopping shipping getting anywhere near Germany.
2.Again, yea. After germanies considerable losses from ww1 and destroyed economy there population was anything but thriving.
1) Still had the largest population in Europe.
2) Outside of Hyperinflation, the German economy was very good in the 1920s.
3) Srsly, wut? Hardly living off the land? Nein. Falsch, Typ.
3.And at the time germany had very little trade partners
... eh?

They were still trading with the US until 1916 (indeed they sent a U-boot to pick up some completely insignificant amounts of rubber, oil etc.), had a lot of trade from South America, especially Bolivia, whose railway they helped to build, and had their colonies in Africa, lame as they were, supplying what they could from overseas.

They were hardly without trading partners. The problem was more that none of the supplies could get through because of complete Allied control of the Med and North Sea.