A little of bit late... (at least in Europe) , but let us remember this important day in modern history ... eleventh hour, eleventh day of the eleventh month...

Greetings.

Indeed.

Gentlemen, all the dead :insert cheers smilie without goofy grins:

I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperiled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
They said it better than anyone else ever could. There is no better epitaph for fallen soldiers than their own deeds.

You know, the Franco-British blockade of Germany continued even after the armistice. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death as a result.

Not really a cause for celebration if you ask me.

It was you know an armistice, not a "O HAI GERMANI, U GAIN THE MATERIALS TO KEEP FIGHTIN' EH?" kind of setup...

It was you know an armistice, not a "O HAI GERMANI, U GAIN THE MATERIALS TO KEEP FIGHTIN' EH?" kind of setup...

The blockade was continued purposefully to pressure Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn't composed yet. Which isn't unheard of in the era, but it doesn't mean that it was therefore not inhumane.

A little of bit late... (at least in Europe) , but let us remember this important day in modern history ... eleventh hour, eleventh day of the eleventh month...

Greetings.

:salute:

The blockade was continued purposefully to pressure Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn't composed yet. Which isn't unheard of in the era, but it doesn't mean that it was therefore not inhumane.

Not any more inhumane that the millions dead on the battlefields for that same purpose...

Not any more inhumane that the millions dead on the battlefields for that same purpose...

Neither would be preferable to a blockadeless peace, so what is your point?

More dead Germans is always a cause for celebration.

You are a sick person.

You are a sick person.
Nope, just a vindictive Jewish bastard.

Nope, just a vindictive Jewish bastard.

Because there were no German Jews in the early 20th century, mirite? None of them fought for the Empire against the hardcore antisemitic Romanovs, right?

Because there were no German Jews in the early 20th century, mirite? None of them fought for the Empire against the hardcore antisemitic Romanovs, right?
Sigh.

Do people around here not understand jokes? I thought Harvin87's post was, since my first post also was, though your reaction would seem to indicate that not everyone here understands that such as obvious troll is meant in jest.

Sigh.

Do people around here not understand jokes? I thought Harvin87's post was, since my first post also was, though your reaction would seem to indicate that not everyone here understands that such as obvious troll is meant in jest.

I took your first post as a joke, though your second one seemed genuine, so I gave a half-hearted response. Get off meine Rückseite.

I took your first post as a joke, though your second one seemed genuine, so I gave a half-hearted response. Get off meine Rückseite.
No, you get off meine Ruckseite!

What the hell is a Ruckseite?

No, you get off meine Ruckseite!

What the hell is a Ruckseite?

According to Google Translate, it means Ruckseite (http://translate.google.com/translate_t?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&text=Ruckseite&file=&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=#).

You forgot der Umlaut (ü). It means backside, aber es ist gut.

<snip>

Happy Veteran's Day (as we call it in the United States).

just type alt 666 Ü

Paris, France today

http://www.faz.net/m/%7B24D1BB51-5D47-4244-881C-252590B9DE63%7DPicture.jpg

Amusing corollary: we discussed the Western Front in 1918 in a course on the military history of Europe between the French Revolution and World War II today. We ended it on Armistice Day.

Yeah, I know the prof planned it that way, but still. Pretty cool.

You know, the Franco-British blockade of Germany continued even after the armistice. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death as a result.

Not really a cause for celebration if you ask me.
The next option with respect to WWI would be the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and I believe that the end of the fighting is a good day to commemorate those who didn't return (also considering that date coincides with the trigger of the war, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Plus it was started immediately after the war when people weren't quite favourable to Germans and to put it one way, for the most part our soldiers stopped dieing.
Not to mention in Canada there is usually very little celebration, just a ceremony (parade of veterans and some community groups, The Last Post, moment of silence, The Rouse, wreath laying, recitation of In Flanders Fields, listing of the local dead (this may not occur in cities, small towns often go through the whole list or local people who died and are listed on the cenotaph), and a brief speech or two. This is a rural Ontario perspective, though.
As well, the focus is not on WWI, the ceremony is more general (the local cenotaph lists all the dead from WWI, WWII, and Korea, and the roll can include those in other conflicts.

A bit of an aside, but I was wondering how well, if at all, In Flanders Fields is known outside of Canada. Here it is a standard part of Remembrance Day ceremonies and part is even on the $10 bill.

I expect In Flanders Fields is played in the UK as well. Not so much in the States.

The poor handling of the end of WWI is what caused WWII, so I wouldn't celebrate any part of it. Except perhaps the U.S. rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, even if it was for totally unrelated reasons and because you can't codify that into any specific day.

They said it better than anyone else ever could. There is no better epitaph for fallen soldiers than their own deeds.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." - George S. Patton

The poor handling of the end of WWI is what caused WWII, so I wouldn't celebrate any part of it.
And while many problems came from WWI, some people benefited from it. It changed the Canadian economy pushing industrialization and mechanization in a way that never would have happened during peace (which was further pushed by WWII) and caused us to assert ourselves in the area of foreign relations.

Besides it isn't as if most places celebrate the war or the Treaty of Versailles, it is about the end of the killing (albeit only for 21 years), and to honour the people who served.
Just because you don't like the actions of governments involved doesn't mean you shouldn't recognize the hundreds of thousands of men and women who chose to give up their regular lives (and for many thousands, their entire life) and serve, and those who were forced to serve but did their duty nonetheless.

I find the idea of wishing people a happy armistice day rather weird. It's not supposed to be a day for happiness. You're supposed to be remembering people who got slaughtered.

Happy Veteran's Day (as we call it in the United States).

Does that mean that in the US the day is dedicated only to the survivors?

Just because you don't like the actions of governments involved doesn't mean you shouldn't recognize the hundreds of thousands of men and women who chose to give up their regular lives (and for many thousands, their entire life) and serve, and those who were forced to serve but did their duty nonetheless.

I would remember them, but as victims, not as people who did any kind of "duty".

You have been beating me to the lulz lately.


Happy Veteran's Day (as we call it in the United States).
It's my duty to make as many inappropriate jokes as possible. It chases the Black Dog away, just for a little while.

The blockade was continued purposefully to pressure Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which wasn't composed yet. Which isn't unheard of in the era, but it doesn't mean that it was therefore not inhumane.

It was better that the war ended there and then, than continue on for some indeterminable period. Keeping the situation at home deleterious was entirely commiserate with doing exactly that. It wasn't nice, but then what war is?

I find the idea of wishing people a happy armistice day rather weird. It's not supposed to be a day for happiness. You're supposed to be remembering people who got slaughtered.

There's already been enough sadness. The first wife of my great grandfather lost three of her boys during the First War - that killed her. His second wife my great grandmother lost three of her boys in three days during the Second War and had two of her step-sons die as well. That left three widows and six children without husbands and fathers - and I'm not sure how many girlfriends. And the numerous surviving sons of the first wife without a mother. I always make it a point to honor them by doing something they could never do again and wanted so desperately to do. I spend some time with my darling doing what I imagine they would have done (and some of them described in explicitly what they intended to do, so I have some measure of guidance).

I expect In Flanders Fields is played in the UK as well. Not so much in the States.

"In Flanders Fields" is quite well-known in the US, or at least it was when I was growing up (a long time ago :old:). It is more commonly recited at our Memorial Day events, however.

Does that mean that in the US the day is dedicated only to the survivors?

More or less, yes. In 1954 the holiday was renamed as "Veterans Day", and is intended to honor all US veterans. Over time, the "remembrance of the fallen" concept has moved to Memorial Day, in May.

In 1968, Congress even moved the observance of Veterans Day to the 4th Monday of October, making it just another "Monday Holiday". However, the significance of 'the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month' was not lost on most Americans (yet), so in 1978 it was returned to its traditional day.

I would remember them, but as victims, not as people who did any kind of "duty".

You are free to do as you wish, but many of us still hold the ideals of "Duty, Honor, Country".

You are free to do as you wish, but many of us still hold the ideals of "Duty, Honor, Country".

That is something over which we will have to agree to disagree. I'm with Tertullian on this one. It seems to me that an awful lot of the evils of history, including the main ones commemorated on 11 November, have come from people thinking that "country" is an ideal.

And while many problems came from WWI, some people benefited from it. It changed the Canadian economy pushing industrialization and mechanization in a way that never would have happened during peace (which was further pushed by WWII) and caused us to assert ourselves in the area of foreign relations.

I hope you're not suggesting that the 37 million casualties in WWI was worth some Canadians getting jobs in factories.

Besides it isn't as if most places celebrate the war or the Treaty of Versailles, it is about the end of the killing (albeit only for 21 years), and to honour the people who served.

I'm not rattling against Veteran's Day, only that the armistice should be celebrated.

It was better that the war ended there and then, than continue on for some indeterminable period. Keeping the situation at home deleterious was entirely commiserate with doing exactly that. It wasn't nice, but then what war is?

How exactly do you think Germany could've resumed the war if the blockade had been lifted?

You know, the Franco-British blockade of Germany continued even after the armistice. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death as a result.

Not really a cause for celebration if you ask me.

Outside of the US Armistice Day is to remember all the fallen of war. It is not a celebration of anything. It remembers the dead soldiers on all sides as it remembers the dead civilians on all sides.

If you are going to disrespect a memorial being wrong makes you foolish as well as despicable.

I hold you, sir, in the deepest contempt.

Outside of the US Armistice Day is to remember all the fallen of war. It is not a celebration of anything. It remembers the dead soldiers on all sides as it remembers the dead civilians on all sides.

If you are going to disrespect a memorial being wrong makes you foolish as well as despicable.

I hold you, sir, in the deepest contempt.

Perhaps if my intent were to disrespect the soldiers and civilians, you would have a point. Rather, I'm bothered by the fact that Armistice Day is a celebration because of the disrespect it gives to so many civilians.

Perhaps if my intent were to disrespect the soldiers and civilians, you would have a point. Rather, I'm bothered by the fact that Armistice Day is a celebration because of the disrespect it gives to so many civilians.

And as such you do not understand the memorial as observed by everyone outside the US, including German civilians. Such as, for instance, the OP.

That the US remembers only it's own dead on Armistice Day is something that irks just about everyone else as deeply disrespectful. To be told by an American that europeans are wrong to remember the mindless bloody futility of the whole nonsense is laughable.

And as such you do not understand the memorial as observed by everyone outside the US, including German civilians. Such as, for instance, the OP.

It's called "Armistice Day" and it's celebrated on November 11th. I'm aware of the other connotations to it but I'm speaking solely of this one.

That the US remembers only it's own dead on Armistice Day is something that irks just about everyone else as deeply disrespectful. To be told by an American that europeans are wrong to remember the mindless bloody futility of the whole nonsense is laughable.

I don't believe I ever said nor implied that. Furthermore, I don't believe I ever identified myself as an American.

It's called "Armistice Day" and it's celebrated on November 11th. I'm aware of the other connotations to it but I'm speaking solely of this one.

I don't believe I ever said nor implied that. Furthermore, I don't believe I ever identified myself as an American.

LightSpectra
You English Are Mad
LightSpectra's Avie
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Maryland, U.S.
Posts: 1,413

Your complaint that France and Britain are being disrespectful to remember the dead Germans on Armistice Day is necessarily coloured by the fact that it follows from the assertions of your avie that the English are mad and you are an American, a country who does not see fit to honour any but their own dead on Armistice Day.

Good day to you sir :hatsoff:

Your complaint that France and Britain are being disrespectful to remember the dead Germans on Armistice Day is necessarily coloured by the fact that it follows from you assertions of your avie that the English are mad and you are an American, a country who does not see fit to honour any but their own dead on Armistice Day.

I don't believe I ever identified myself as an American, nor do I believe that my amusing profile tag has any bearing on what I have to say.

I don't believe I ever identified myself as an American, nor do I believe that my amusing profile tag has any bearing on what I have to say.

Every post you make contains the information in your avie.

Every post you make contains the information in your avie.

Are you confusing citizenship with location?

The poor handling of the end of WWI is what caused WWII, so I wouldn't celebrate any part of it. Except perhaps the U.S. rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, even if it was for totally unrelated reasons and because you can't codify that into any specific day.True, I guess the Entente should have bombed out Germany, raped German women, divided the country in 2 pieces, and built a wall in the middle of Berlin.

Of course I'm provoking but there's still something true in this. If WWI hasn't lead to a stable peace, it's not because the winners have been too harsh, it's because they've been too kind :
1- They've been too kind when they accepted to stop fighting at the German border.
2- They've been too kind in letting Hitler invade Austria and Czechoslovakia without moving a finger.

The Versailles Treaty was a good Treaty, in the sense it was the best compromise possible considering the situation. Let's not forget that WWI was a curious war where the major winner (i.e. France) was totally devastated, whereas the major loser (i.e. Germany) was fully intact. As such, demilitarizing Germany was sane, and even making them pay reparations was logic.

The big failure was to let the Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff pretend the war wasn't lost on the military field. And the only way to convince the German people they did lose was to invade Germany. Signing the peace at Cologne would have been enough. The Rhine would have been reached, and the occupation of Rhineland would have been unquestionnable.

The Rhine was reached. Allied forces occupied the Rhineland between the armistice and the peace.

The Rhine was reached. Allied forces occupied the Rhineland between the armistice and the peace.It hasn't been conqueered militarily. It was only a clause signed at the armistice of the November 11th.

The big problem is that the Armistice has not been signed by the leaders of German forces. It has been signed by German civilians representing the government : Matthias Erzberger and Alfred von Oberndorff. As a result, the two German generals who lead the war on the Western Front, Ludendorff and Hindenburg, pretended later to the German people that the war hasn't been lost militarily, and that the civilians who signed it were just uninspired politicians.

The whole issue about world war I is there. Germans were convinced to be unfairly treated only because they were convinced they didn't really lose the war militarily.

It hasn't been conqueered militarily. It was only a clause signed at the armistice of the November 11th.

The big problem is that the Armistice has not been signed by the leaders of German forces. It has been signed by German civilians representing the government : Matthias Erzberger and Alfred von Oberndorff. As a result, the two German generals who lead the war on the Western Front, Ludendorff and Hindenburg, pretended later to the German people that the war hasn't been lost militarily, and that the civilians who signed it were just uninspired politicians.

The whole issue about world war I is there. Germans were convinced to be unfairly treated only because they were convinced they didn't really lose the war militarily.

Europe by then (or at least that part of Europe) had a tradition of having the military well under civil control, so I wouldn't blame the diplomats for not having foreseen the consequences of the way the armistice was signed.
Also, all the allies but the americans were either exhausted or irrelevant, and the americans were not very keen on fighting for the sake of invading Germany, so continuing the fight over an issue of who signed what might be politically impossible, I suspect.

Europe by then (or at least that part of Europe) had a tradition of having the military well under civil control, so I wouldn't blame the diplomats for not having foreseen the consequences of the way the armistice was signed.
Also, all the allies but the americans were either exhausted or irrelevant, and the americans were not very keen on fighting for the sake of invading Germany, so continuing the fight over an issue of who signed what might be politically impossible, I suspect.The allies weren't exhausted. They moved fast from August to November on all fronts, and most of Germany's allies capitulated during that period.

If the Entente hasn't invaded Germany (even partially), it's not because they couldn't, it's because they didn't want to. Britain and the US didn't want to go beyond the German border because of their historical irrational fear of a too powerful France over the continent.

If I say that fear was irrational, it's because France was a small country of 35-40 million people at the time... whereas Germany was a country of 70 million. France simply couldn't dominate Europe in any way.

Once again I repeat. If the peace has failed after world war 1, it's not because the winners have been too harsh, it's only because they've been too kind. Just imagine if Russia and the US had stopped at the German border in 1945, and decided then to split Germany the way it's been split. Do you really believe this would have been accepted by the Germans ? This is a sad thing to say, but in a total war, a country only recognizes its defeat once it's invaded.

Did the Germans occupy France after 1871?

I was under the impression that the Germans were thrown into the arm of Hitler after the First World War because the allies left them out to dry. "You pay us reparations, good luck!" and then stationed French troops in the Ruhr and left. While after the Second World War the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany after the allies looted it, and occupied it.

Did the Germans occupy France after 1871?It occupied Alsace-Lorraine untill 1918. And that wasn't simply a military occupation, it was an annexation. Talking about this, the French military left the Ruhr in 1925: 8 years before Hitler took control of Germany.

France had to pay reparations to Germany also after the treaty of Frankfurt. The reparations of Versailles Treaty were calculated on those of Frankfurt. France could pay the reparations easily to Germany thanks to the period of properity of the 2nd industrial revolution. France even paid them in advance, clearing its debt as soon as in 1905 (reparations were meant to last untill the 30's).

France never made a fuss about having to pay reparations after 1870. And if they accepted them, it's because they clearly aggressed Prussia, and they got invaded, making their loss unquestionnable.


I was under the impression that the Germans were thrown into the arm of Hitler after the First World War because the allies left them out to dry. "You pay us reparations, good luck!" and then stationed French troops in the Ruhr and left. While after the Second World War the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany after the allies looted it, and occupied it.Think about it again. After ww2, Germany was totally destroyed, cities were bombed out, all German territories at the East of the Oder-Neiss line were permanently lost, and the remaining parts of Germany were divided in 2. Was that really less harsh than giving the small town of Dantzig to the Poles??

The reparations weren't unbearable, it's the 1929 crisis which made them unbearable, and Germany quickly stopped to pay them once they became unbearable. Try to think more about it. What would have you done in Versailles during peace negociations? You would have asked to a devastated France to pay a Marshall plan to an intact Germany? This just doesn't make sense!

The huge mistake of ww1 was to stop military operations at the German border, making it easier for populists to pretend Germany didn't lose the war and that the peace treaty was thus unfair.

But it's not the only thing which has lead to world war 2. Hitler would have probably never taken power in Germany without the 1929 crisis. And also, the passive attitude of Britain and France gave to dictators the feeling they could make their market without being disturbed :
1931 : Japan invades Mandchuria. The allies don't react.
1935 : Mussolini invades Ethiopia. The allies don't react.
1936 : Hitler re-occupies the demilitarized zone of Rhineland. The allies don't react.
1936 : Hitler and Mussolini support Franco in Spain. The allies don't react.
1938 : Hitler invades Austria. The allies don't react.
1938 : Hitler invades the Sudetenland. The allies don't react.
1939 : Hitler invades what remains of Czechoslovakia. The allies don't react.

Britain and France were so scared by the idea of another worldwide conflict that they were ready to accept everything in order to maintain peace. They have mutlipled the signs of appeasement, even accepting what should have NEVER been accepted. And it's exactly this which has convinced Hitler he could do whatever he wanted without being disturbed.

If Britain and France are guilty of anything which triggered ww2, it would be there excessive kindness. Certainly not their excessive harshness.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." - George S. Patton

That's why this day is called Remembrance day in Canada - we don't mourn them, we remember them. At least I think that's what's supposed to happen ;) Of course there is an accompanied feeling of sadness in the air, but that always happens when you talk about death.. unless it's easter?

Britain and France were so scared by the idea of another worldwide conflict that they were ready to accept everything in order to maintain peace. They have mutlipled the signs of appeasement, even accepting what should have NEVER been accepted. And it's exactly this which has convinced Hitler he could do whatever he wanted without being disturbed.

If they hadn't done that maybe we wouldn't have learned the same lessons we did from ww2. Cause I mean, ever since then a dictator has had pretty much no chance of invading another country without having to face some sort of a coalition of nations.

Sure, democracies are still free to invade, but being a dictator is right out.

Here are some pictures of this year's remembrance ceremony in my village. The ceremony is for WWI ánd WWII victims (both military and civil). There is a very active committee that organises the cermony, and they also involve children from the primary school and youth organizations like the scouts.

http://www.utklikt.com/Evenement/Wapenstilstand%20Hamont-Achel/index.html

I'm in the band by the way :)

Of course I'm provoking but there's still something true in this. If WWI hasn't lead to a stable peace, it's not because the winners have been too harsh, it's because they've been too kind :
1- They've been too kind when they accepted to stop fighting at the German border.
2- They've been too kind in letting Hitler invade Austria and Czechoslovakia without moving a finger.

The Munich Agreement wasn't a matter of "kindness" but cowardice. This has nothing to do with refusing to fight past the Rhineland.

The Versailles Treaty was a good Treaty, in the sense it was the best compromise possible considering the situation. Let's not forget that WWI was a curious war where the major winner (i.e. France) was totally devastated, whereas the major loser (i.e. Germany) was fully intact. As such, demilitarizing Germany was sane, and even making them pay reparations was logic.

Germany was not fully intact. As I've said, hundreds of thousands of civilians starved to death due to a post-armistice blockade. Furthermore, dumping all of the financial reparations and moral guilt on the Germans when the fault was almost equally spread among the Great Powers was a bit silly, don't you think?

The big failure was to let the Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff pretend the war wasn't lost on the military field. And the only way to convince the German people they did lose was to invade Germany. Signing the peace at Cologne would have been enough. The Rhine would have been reached, and the occupation of Rhineland would have been unquestionnable.

The myth that Germany won in the field but was defeated at home by revolutionaries was indeed invented by Ludendorff, though I'm curious why you think this myth would've disappeared had the Allies decided to go further into Germany. All it would've meant is that the German nationalists would have been more bitter at their own industrialists and been more antisemitic for causing a greater catastrophe to happen to their fatherland.

The whole issue about world war I is there. Germans were convinced to be unfairly treated only because they were convinced they didn't really lose the war militarily.

They thought they were treated unfairly because they were treated unfairly. Had a more fair peace been given to the Germans, it wouldn't of matter what Hindenburg and Ludendorff and Hitler told them, because it wouldn't have mattered.

Once again I repeat. If the peace has failed after world war 1, it's not because the winners have been too harsh, it's only because they've been too kind. Just imagine if Russia and the US had stopped at the German border in 1945, and decided then to split Germany the way it's been split. Do you really believe this would have been accepted by the Germans ? This is a sad thing to say, but in a total war, a country only recognizes its defeat once it's invaded.

The reason why it was split as it was, is because the Allies forced it upon them militarily (whether or not one thinks this was a good idea is irrelevant). Asking if the Germans would've accepted it had it not been done with the threat of force is therefore an absurd question.

France had to pay reparations to Germany also after the treaty of Frankfurt. The reparations of Versailles Treaty were calculated on those of Frankfurt.

The Treaty of Frankfurt was exactly proportional to the reparations that Napoleon forced upon Prussia. Now do you see why ridiculous revanchist politics never goes anywhere? Post-Napoleonic France wasn't out for blood, because they were given a relatively fair peace. Post-Versailles Germany and post-Frankfurt France, however, were given victors' justice, and thus were aching to cause a new war.

France never made a fuss about having to pay reparations after 1870. And if they accepted them, it's because they clearly aggressed Prussia, and they got invaded, making their loss unquestionnable.

Are you implying that WWI was the same deal?

Think about it again. After ww2, Germany was totally destroyed, cities were bombed out, all German territories at the East of the Oder-Neiss line were permanently lost, and the remaining parts of Germany were divided in 2. Was that really less harsh than giving the small town of Dantzig to the Poles??

West Germans were given an incredibly generous peace with the Marshall Plan, as opposed to Roosevelt's monstrous Morgenthau Plan. Therefore, they had no problem with co-operating with NATO and what not -- because they were welcomed back to the international community. On the other hand, the East Germans couldn't do much, considering that they were then subjugated by the Soviets; and they really didn't care once the Cold War was over to reclaim what they had lost.

The reparations weren't unbearable, it's the 1929 crisis which made them unbearable, and Germany quickly stopped to pay them once they became unbearable. Try to think more about it. What would have you done in Versailles during peace negociations? You would have asked to a devastated France to pay a Marshall plan to an intact Germany? This just doesn't make sense!

Germany would've had to pay back the Versailles reparations until the 1990s. But no, I wouldn't have asked for some sort of Marshall Plan, as that would've been unnecessary and unfair. I would've given the Germans a fair peace, though.

The huge mistake of ww1 was to stop military operations at the German border, making it easier for populists to pretend Germany didn't lose the war and that the peace treaty was thus unfair.

They thought that the war was lost because of revolutionaries at home. That was the point of the stabbed-in-the-back myth. It wouldn't of mattered how far the Allies went into the German Empire because the Germans still would've blamed the revolutionaries.

Britain and France were so scared by the idea of another worldwide conflict that they were ready to accept everything in order to maintain peace. They have mutlipled the signs of appeasement, even accepting what should have NEVER been accepted. And it's exactly this which has convinced Hitler he could do whatever he wanted without being disturbed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles.

If Britain and France are guilty of anything which triggered ww2, it would be there excessive kindness. Certainly not their excessive harshness.

How much harsher would you like to have been? Put them into a thousand years of economic subjugation instead of a hundred? Just destroy the nation of Germany altogether? Because that would've only made WWII all the more brutal, not prevented it.

I think the "discussion" about the First World War should be moved to a previous Versailles thread or to its own thread.
Did the Germans occupy France after 1871?

I was under the impression that the Germans were thrown into the arm of Hitler after the First World War because the allies left them out to dry. "You pay us reparations, good luck!" and then stationed French troops in the Ruhr and left. While after the Second World War the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany after the allies looted it, and occupied it.
To actually answer your question (because it seems as though nobody else has been willing to), the Germans occupied most of France, withdrawing by stages as the Treaty of Frankfurt reparations were paid. I believe that German troops were completely off French soil by 1875. Much like the Allied occupation of France after Vienna, which continued until the French negotiated their way out of it at the Aachen Congress.
It occupied Alsace-Lorraine untill 1918. And that wasn't simply a military occupation, it was an annexation. Talking about this, the French military left the Ruhr in 1925: 8 years before Hitler took control of Germany.
That wasn't what he was asking about. Besides, Germans could point to the Saar, to the centuries-long French annexation of German Alsace, and so forth. LightSpectra does have a good point here: nationalist masturbation like that doesn't solve anybody's problems.

How much harsher would you like to have been? Put them into a thousand years of economic subjugation instead of a hundred? Just destroy the nation of Germany altogether? Because that would've only made WWII all the more brutal, not prevented it.Invading Germany.

The key issue is that Germany didn't accept its status of loser. If Ludendorf and Hindenburg had been pushed back to the right bank of the Rhine, they would have had a hard time to convince anyone that it was only the fault of the revolutionaries.

During the whole 20's, Britain and France never ceased to show signs of good will and appeasement to Germany. Did the cuddles prevent Hitler to reach power ? NO.

A war where the invader is only pushed back to its own border is never a fully ended war. Check for instance the Gulf war... the allies stopped at the Iraqi border. Did it solve anything ?

Invading Germany.

So more Germans, Frenchmen, Brits and Americans should have died because giving a fair peace to Germany would've been out of the question?

The key issue is that Germany didn't accept its status of loser. If Ludendorf and Hindenburg had been pushed back to the right bank of the Rhine, they would have had a hard time to convince anyone that it was only the fault of the revolutionaries.

It wouldn't have mattered who won had they agreed to a fair peace in the first place.

During the whole 20's, Britain and France never ceased to show signs of good will and appeasement to Germany. Did the cuddles prevent Hitler to reach power ? NO.

Apparently, ending a war with fair terms for everybody is the same as appeasement. Hitler came to power precisely because the Allies felt that they had to humiliate Germany, just as how the French were permanent enemies with the Hohenzollerns because the Germans decided to humiliate them in their own previous war.

A war where the invader is only pushed back to its own border is never a fully ended war. Check for instance the Gulf war... the allies stopped at the Iraqi border. Did it solve anything ?

Germany was the invader because that was their war plan. That's how they thought they'd end the war with the least amount of human casualties. That doesn't make the war their fault. Perhaps you should examine the Crimean War, or the Austro-Prussian War, or the Seven Years' War: wars that ended with long-term peace between the belligerents, yet did not involve capturing any capital cities.

And using the Gulf War as an example is a bit silly, considering that the Second Gulf War had almost nothing to do with the First.

So more Germans, Frenchmen, Brits and Americans should have died because giving a fair peace to Germany would've been out of the question?Alright. Let's say that Versailles Treaty was too "harsh". What should have been done then?

Who should have paid to rebuild France? France itself? Who destroyed it? Who tried to invade it? You seem to forget too easily that France fought during 4 years for its own survival. During those 4 years, Germany could stop the war at any time, they were the invader. They didn't. They waited to be pushed back to their border and then they said okay we stop.

In this context, what should have been done? Keeping the borders of Germany the same and spare them to contribute to the reconstruction of a French industry? You would be asking here France to accept a status of loser, despite having pushed back an invasion.

Alright. Let's say that Versailles Treaty was too "harsh". What should have been done then?

The cost should've been calculated based on the damage done to northern France and Belgium versus the amount of civilians killed by the naval blockade of Germany. Beyond that, it should've been status quo ante bellum -- though perhaps Alsace-Lorraine should've had a plebiscite to re-join France or not.

You seem to forget too easily that France fought during 4 years for its own survival. During those 4 years, Germany could stop the war at any time, they were the invader. They didn't. They waited to be pushed back to their border and then they said okay we stop.

Because they wanted to win the war, just as France and Britain also did. Is that a crime? The war wasn't their fault, at least not so much that they deserved the insane reparations that Versailles gave them.

In this context, what should have been done? Keeping the borders of Germany the same and spare them to contribute to the reconstruction of a French industry? You would be asking here France to accept a status of loser, despite having pushed back an invasion.

They wouldn't have lost by virtue of the fact that they resisted invasion.

Suppose for a moment that America had never entered the war: meaning, the Allies would've never had the full manpower for a full invasion into the Rhineland. What then? Perpetual stalemate? Likely not, since the blockade of Austria-Hungary and Germany would've meant that France and Britain could've gone much longer. Rather, it seems to be the case that Germany was losing the war from the moment the war began, hence they felt it necessary to initiate the Schlieffen Plan.

Lightspectra, be rational. What you're saying would have only incited Germany to go for a third expedition in France!

Your wishful thinking would consist France in saying: "Okay, you're twice more populated than us, you've put our country in ruins, our industry is fully destroyed, our population will decrease for the next 20 years because too many French kids died on the front, I think that's fair to let you alone so that you could prepare for another attack".

That's just a German nationalist wet dream. It would have never lead to any stable peace.


But this being said, the peace handling after ww1 is far to be the only thing causing ww2. The 1929 crisis and the passivity of democracies regarding fascists aggressions are the two major causes to world war 2.

Lightspectra, be rational. What you're saying would have only incite Germany to go for a third expedition in France!

They would've had no desire to had they been given a fair peace as opposed to victors' justice.

You were asking France to say : "Okay, you're twice more populated than us, you've put our country in ruins, I think that's fair to let you alone so that you could prepare for another attack".

Perhaps you may have noticed that the Schlieffen Plan was implemented at the beginning of World War I, whose cause had equally to do with France and Germany: it wasn't just a "oh hey, let's go beat up France today" mood as you're implying.

That's just a German nationalist wet dream. It would have never lead to any stable peace.

But Versailles: that was a stable peace, right? Afterall, a war twice its size only started twenty years later. I think Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George deserve a round of applause for the Concert of Europe they established.

No, what was failed in world war 1 was to determine an unquestionable loser. But this being said, the peace handling after ww1 is far to be the only thing explaining ww2. The 1929 crisis and the passivity of democracies regarding fascists aggressions are the two major causes to world war 2.

The Germans wouldn't have been revanchist had they not been humiliated, which was the same thing that happened to France after the Treaty of Frankfurt -- hence why their foreign policy from 1871 to 1919 was something along the lines of, "destroy Germany."

Who should have paid to rebuild France? France itself? Who destroyed it? Who tried to invade it? You seem to forget too easily that France fought during 4 years for its own survival. During those 4 years, Germany could stop the war at any time, they were the invader.

The Germans tried to negotiate peace in 1916.

The Germans tried to negotiate peace in 1916.

Not just that. The Pope also tried to broke a status quo ante bellum peace, though France refused to agree to it and even broke off relations with the Vatican because of it. Austria-Hungary, after Karl I became emperor, for a third time tried to end the war, but France still hadn't damned Germany yet. They had no interest in ending the war before total victory, because despite the fact that the Germans occupied the northern part of their country, they knew that the Central Powers had very little chance at success.

Do I blame them for it? Not entirely, because they wanted to win the war, just as all of the other participants in the war did.

Do I blame them for it? Not entirely, because they wanted to win the war, just as all of the other participants in the war did.

I blame the Slavs. They are the cause of the ills of the 20th century.

They just wanted the mighty powers of Western Europe (United Kingdom, France, and Germany) to fight with one another in order to gain power themselves. We saw this when they controlled half of Europe in 1945.

They would've had no desire to had they been given a fair peace as opposed to victors' justice.Oh really? Germany fully won in 1871. How did it prevent for another invasion in 1914? How?

You don't live in the real world.


But Versailles: that was a stable peace, right? Afterall, a war twice its size only started twenty years later. I think Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George deserve a round of applause for the Concert of Europe they established.I've always said that no stable peace was possible in stopping war at the German border. That's my whole point since the beginning.


The Germans wouldn't have been revanchist had they not been humiliated, which was the same thing that happened to France after the Treaty of Frankfurt -- hence why their foreign policy from 1871 to 1919 was something along the lines of, "destroy Germany."Yeah... and why Germans aren't revanchist nowadays? They've lost a third of their country to Poland. Another third of the country has been devastated by 40 years of Soviet occupation. They aren't revanchist because they've FINALLY been disgusted about war.

I would have liked Germans to get disgusted about war in 1918, just like the French and Brits. And for this, destruction of Germany in 1918 (instead of 1945) was the only realistic solution.

Yes I repeat. More suffering in world war 1 was the only way to avoid the human devastation of world war 2.

Oh really? Germany fully won in 1871. How did it prevent for another invasion in 1914? How?

You don't live in the real world.

They were automatically with war against France the moment Russia and Austria-Hungary went to war, and since Germany had no desire to be invaded, they decided to attack first. You're writing history as if Germany just hated France's guts and invaded for the kicks of it.

I've said again that no stable peace was possible in signing peace at the German border. That's my whole point since the beginning.

Suppose the Allies went all the way to Berlin. Then what? How does that prevent another war?

Yeah... and why Germans aren't revanchist nowadays? They've lost a third of their country to Poland. Another third of the country has been devastated by 40 years of Soviet occupation. They aren't revanchist because they've FINALLY been disgusted about war.

Or, because they were re-integrated into the world community as a necessary partner against the Soviets, as opposed to being damned again by an unfair peace. Yes, the East Germans got shafted, this is true, but they couldn't do anything about it due to the Soviets.

I would have liked Germans to get disgusted about war in 1918, just like the French and Brits. And for this, destruction of Germany in 1918 was the only realistic solution.

Considering that never would've been permanent and only have made the inhabitants of Germany more disgusted at the more unfair peace they were given, your solution is bonkers.

The French and Brits were happy with the resolution in 1919, because of the fact that they weren't damned with a nationalist victors' justice, as Germany was. Perhaps if a fair peace had been given, which would've been necessary had the U.S. not entered WWI, there would've been no permanent revanchism. If you think this isn't the case, please offer your own explanation for the difference between French foreign policy in 1815 and 1871.

Your proposal WOULN'T HAVE BEEN a fair peace. GET REAL.

France made everything to bring back Germany in the concert of nations during the 20's. It moved out of Rhineland in 1925, and few years later Aristide Briand invited Germany to join the League of Nations. This has not prevented Hitler to take power in Germany.

When Hitler entered the demilitarized zone, France and Britain let him do it. When Hitler made the Anschluss, France and Britain let him do it. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, France and Britain let him do it. None of these have prevented world war 2. You live in dreamworld in believing Germany wouldn't have started ww2 with more kindness after ww1. This just doesn't make sense.

Your proposal WOULN'T HAVE BEEN a faire peace. GET REAL.

Germany, even without U.S. opposition, would've lost the war either way. The only difference is whether they would've been given all the guilt for a war that was only partially their fault, thus humiliating them into wanting another war, or if they would've become uninterested in having millions die over a terrorist in Serbia, as was the case for the Allied nations.

France made everything to bring back Germany in the concert of nations during the 20's. It moved out of Rhineland in 1925, and few years later Aristide Briand invited Germany to join the League of Nations. This has not prevented Hitler to take power in Germany.

Hitler came to power by exploiting the sentiments of the German people. Sentiments that wouldn't have existed had Versailles not damned them.

Hitler came to power by exploiting the sentiments of the German people. Sentiments that wouldn't have existed had Versailles not damned them.No, Hitler came to power by exploiting the mysery and social instability generated by the 1929 crisis.

In 1923, France hadn't shown any sign of appeasement yet. The Versailles treaty was only 3 years old. Hitler tried a coup, and has been enjailed after failing it. He succeeded to take power only 10 years later... after 10 years of appeasement from the allies. The 1929 crisis played a much more important role in the rise of Hitler than the Versailles treaty did.

As far as I know, neither Austria, nor the Sudetenland were part of the German Empire in 1914. This hasn't prevented Hitler to claim them once in power.

No, Hitler came to power by exploiting the mysery and social instability generated by the 1929 crisis.

It's not difficult to equate financial instability with the reparations that you've been forced to pay back until the '90s.

It's not difficult to equate financial instability with the reparations that you've been forced to pay back until the '90s.That's absurd!

1- France had to pay the exact same reparations after the Frankfurt Treaty, it has never lead to any financial instability.
2- Once Germany stopped to pay reparations because of the crisis, France let it do it.

Please try to think a bit by yourself. It's obvious Hitler would have never reached power without the 1929 crisis.

1- France had to pay the exact same reparations after the Frankfurt Treaty, it has never lead to any financial instability.

Frankfurt was based on the reparations that Napoleon forced on Prussia; and wouldn't you know it, France had a grudge against Germany until they got their revenge? True, they didn't experience the Great Depression between then, but they had Alsace-Lorraine to remind them of their defeat.

2- Once Germany stopped to pay reparations because of the crisis, France let it do it.

The damage had already been done by then.

The damage had already been done by then.And if the damage was already done, it's only because German people never accepted the peace signed on the november 11th. So we go back to my initial statement. It was impossible to achieve a stable peace in stopping the war at the German border.

Come on LightSpectra... just have a bit of common sense. It's obvious that Germany accepted the total loss of Eastern Prussia, Eastern Pomerania and Silesia only because they've been fully destroyed during ww2. That kind of experience tends to totally disgust you about war.

You really believe it wasn't painful for all the German families living in the territories ceaded to Poland to move to the West of the country? You really seem to underestimate the sufferings of Germany after ww2.

And if the damage was already done, it's only because German people never accepted the peace signed on the november 11th. So we go back to my initial statement. It was impossible to achieve a stable peace in stopping the war at the German border.

Okay, we need to go over this because it's still not clear. The reason they thought they weren't defeated was because of the German Revolution at home. The myth was that their field armies collapsed because industrialists and Jews ceased to contribute their share to the cause. It doesn't matter how far the Allies went into Germany because the notion of German invincibility wasn't shattered in the eyes of the people of Germany. You keep repeating this without understanding exactly what Ludendorff had spouted.

Come on LightSpectra... just have a bit of common sense. It's obvious that Germany accepted the total loss of Eastern Prussia, Eastern Pomerania and Silesia only because they've been fully destroyed during ww2. That kind of experience tends to totally disgust you about war.

France was rather devastated after the Franco-Prussian War, yet they were oh so ready to go to war with Germany again.

You really believe it wasn't painful for all the German families living in the territories ceaded to Poland to move to the West of the country? You really seem to underestimate the sufferings of Germany after ww2.

When did I ever say or imply this? West Germany was given a fair peace, East Germany was under Soviet subjugation. I'm oversimplifying this of course, but revanchism doesn't die because of war sickness, because otherwise the Germans would've given up trying to overthrow Napoleon.

Okay, we need to go over this because it's still not clear. The reason they thought they weren't defeated was because of the German Revolution at home. The myth was that their field armies collapsed because industrialists and Jews ceased to contribute their share to the cause. It doesn't matter how far the Allies went into Germany because the notion of German invincibility wasn't shattered in the eyes of the people of Germany. You keep repeating this without understanding exactly what Ludendorff had spouted.And what you don't seem to understand is that all this would have vanished once confronted to the total destruction which would have been caused by an invasion.

Being at war at home has absolutely nothing to do with being at war in a foreign country. Clémenceau wasn't obsessed by revenge during peace negociation, he was obsessed by the need to make it impossible for Germany to start again. He was right, unfortunately such a task couldn't be accomplished without firstly invading Germany. To talk more rudely, to teach them their lesson which had finally been taught in 1945.

France was rather devastated after the Franco-Prussian War, yet they were oh so ready to go to war with Germany again.Certainly not at the scale of world war 1! You seem rather ignorant about France. The most industrialised regions of the country were then all located in the North East. They were no more after the war. The French economy was ruined. The French youth was also ruined. Don't forget that France population has decreased during the 20 years which had followen the war, because a whole generation had been sacrificed even before the wedding age.

If Germany had experienced something similar, trust me, they wouldn't have wanted war to start over. In 1914, it's true that France wanted revenge and to bring back Alsace-Lorraine inside the Republic, but in 1918, this became something totally secondary in their minds. Just see how quick France had been to capitulate and give back Alsace to the nazis in 1940...

When did I ever say or imply this? West Germany was given a fair peace, East Germany was under Soviet subjugation. I'm oversimplifying this of course, but revanchism doesn't die because of war sickness, because otherwise the Germans would've given up trying to overthrow Napoleon.East Germans were as disgusted about war than West Germans. The scale of conflicts in the 20th century have absolutely nothing to do with the scale of conflicts of the 19th century. You simply cannot compare both.

What is wrong with you people. This is a memorial. You would argue over a funeral casket? Given there are scores of threads on the rights and wrongs of Versailles would any of them not be a more appropriate place to discuss this?

Just bloody tacky.

And what you don't seem to understand is that all this would have vanished once confronted to the total destruction which would have been caused by an invasion.

Scenario 1: the German army collapses because of revolutionaries. Germany surrenders.
Scenario 2: the German army collapses because of revolutionaries. German is invaded and occupied.

Please tell me how the people of the Empire would view #2 as their military being defeated, if they did not do so for #1.

Being at war at home has absolutely nothing to do with being at war in a foreign country. Clémenceau wasn't obsessed by revenge during peace negociation, he was obsessed by the need to make it impossible for Germany to start again.

Two sides of the same coin. You're trying to make a false dichotomy.

If Germany had experienced something similar, trust me, they wouldn't have wanted war to start over. In 1914, it's true that France wanted revenge and to bring back Alsace-Lorraine inside the Republic, but in 1918, this became something totally secondary in their minds. Just see how quick France had been to capitulate and give back Alsace to the nazis in 1940...

Again, France was highly devastated after the Franco-Prussian War, but that doesn't stop revanchism. They thought redeeming their culture was more important than the lives of their youth, just as the Nazis did when they exploited these sentiments after Versailles.

East Germans were as disgusted about war than West Germans. The scale of conflicts in the 20th century have absolutely nothing to do with the scale of conflicts of the 19th century. You simply cannot compare both.

Not disputing this, but you seem to be under the impression that imperialist nations only cease to want to go to war when they've been devastated. Certainly not the case for Britain, because they did even less to avoid WWII than France did. Certainly not the case for the U.S., because they were even less exhausted from WWI than Britain was, and they did even less to avoid WWII than Britain and France did. Et cetera.

The best solution was to have torn Germany apart as a nation. This is the ideal solution to the Germany problem. It would have prevented World War II most certainely. This should have been done in addition to heavy reparations, and military restrictions. Possibly forcible de-industrialization as well and a period of military occupation for a few decades.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/449/germansoloution.png

Wouldn't have lasted. The German unification originally happened due to the socio-economic ties between the German states. The most you could've done is attached Austria with Bavaria. All-in-all it would've just made permanent enemies out of the Germans.

What is wrong with you people. This is a memorial. You would argue over a funeral casket? Given there are scores of threads on the rights and wrongs of Versailles would any of them not be a more appropriate place to discuss this?

Just bloody tacky.
Thank you.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/449/germansoloution.png

Here is a better solution.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/Godwynn/asgasdfhsdfh.jpg

Just become one nation, since we are all human and the biggest difference between a German and a French person is which side of the Rhine he/she was born on. Make the opposite of a person's mother tongue a mandatory first foreign language (in the case of Dutch people, they can learn both since they are just pseudo-Germans anyway.)

There, the world is better off and is a happier place.

Also, I realize that is modern day borders, before Huayna comes in and starts nitpicking.

But Versailles: that was a stable peace, right? Afterall, a war twice its size only started twenty years later. I think Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George deserve a round of applause for the Concert of Europe they established.
There is a big problem in that Versailles wasn't enforced. If there was a strong enough will in the west to enforce the Treaty, Germany would have been in no position to rise up. Sure there may well have been an invasion of Germany at some point, but if done quickly there was no way for Germany to resist, and with this being obvious it could easily have prevented a war. If said war occurred then it would be insignificant compared to WWII.

Suppose the Allies went all the way to Berlin. Then what? How does that prevent another war?

It completely destroys the claim that they were not beaten. That claim was primarily based on the fact that Germany controlled significant Allied territory.

It's not difficult to equate financial instability with the reparations that you've been forced to pay back until the '90s.
If not for two events, reparations were easily payable by Germany, yes it would have hurt them for a while but not crippled them or destroyed them like any believe.
First the German government intentionally (or at least with knowledge of the consequences) pushed inflation to screw over the Allies.
Second the Great Depression devastated the economy.
Also note that reparations were renegotiated on multiple occasions and that for much of the period, Germany was receiving more funds from foreign countries than it was paying in reparations.

From my view the Treaty of Versailles (and its repercussions) could have been improved in four ways:

1. First Britain, France, and/or the United States needed the will to enforce any treaty. Yes, some things could be negotiable, but the military and territorial expansions should have been stopped, immediately, with force.

2. The United States and Britain guarantee support for France. While they promised this at the negotiations, British guarantees were contingent on American guarantees, which failed back home. This ties in largely with 1. France's goal through the negotiations and interwar period was security and there were two ways to ensure this: cripple Germany, or ensure foreign support.

3. A harsher treaty. Destroy Germany. Most likely by breaking it up into a number of smaller, more manageable states. Possibly more annexations. This likely would have ended up being contingent on 1, though, except said enforcement would likely been more necessary earlier than with Versailles.

4. A lenient peace. Decrease the sentiment for revenge and try to bring Germany into the western fold. It would remove the need for a strong will to enforce it. But for it to occur, France would need to feel secure beside a powerful Germany, which wasn't likely even with stronger British and American guarantees.

Even if Germany was occupied, I believe we would likely have a similar situation arising requiring some of the above four points (notably the first would be needed in order to push the war).

Overall, I believe that given the political situation, Versailles was the best peace possible and that if followed and in general enforced with the Americans joining and staying on the world stage, we would have had the best possible result from WWI.

Oh really? Germany fully won in 1871. How did it prevent for another invasion in 1914? How?
This argument is amusingly double edged.

My theory is we should have let Germany steam roll France in 1914/1915 and England stayed out f it. France loses, pays some reparations and maybe loses some border territories a'la 1871. THink about it.

1. The war is over quickly, France isn't devastated.
2. Millions of French don't die in the war as its over qwuickly.
3. Millions of other people don't die over 4 years of conflict.
4. German imperialism wasn't any worse than English or French imperialism. The German colonies seemed better run the the English/French/Belgian ones anyway.
5. No Hitler, no Stalin, and no WW2 as we know it as a bitter and defeated France didn't have the power to do what Hitler did. No occupation of France in 1940 and probably no occupation if the Germans won the war quickly.

The results of Germany winning the war would probably mean 100 000 maybe 200000 dead French, maybe a similar number of dead Germans. Postwar you would have to try really hard to have a worse situation than what happened historically. No Hitler or Lenin/Stalin, no holocaust, maybe no Great Depression, millions of people would have lived etc. Its unlikely Germany would have dominated Europe or even if it did it would have only been for a generation or so.

And France gets smasjhed. Compared to what happened historically its almst win/win all around and ironically probably better for France as well in the long run. For WW3 let the Germans take out France for the good of the planet:)

Yep, because giving Germany utter control of Continental Europe is a completely acceptable option to Britain, and no threat to them at all. :rolleye:

I don't think he proposed giving German utter control of Continental Europe. That wasn't in the cards even in the September war aims that Erzberger et al. drafted after the [First] Battle of the Marne.

no Stalin
I wouldn't be so sure about that one. Yes perhaps Stalin and Lenin wouldn't have been involved, but after losing a war, I don't see the Czarist regime surviving. We will still face a Russian revolution and it isn't that unreasonable for Lenin to find other means to return to the Soviet Union, and who knows, maybe this will cause something worse than WWII.

I don't think he proposed giving German utter control of Continental Europe. That wasn't in the cards even in the September war aims that Erzberger et al. drafted after the [First] Battle of the Marne.
Maybe not utter control in terms of sheer power, but they'd become far and away the most influential, and France would be severely marginalised. Germany could emerge frmo this more powerful than Britain itself, which is a definite no-no for the Brits.

I wouldn't be so sure about that one. Yes perhaps Stalin and Lenin wouldn't have been involved, but after losing a war, I don't see the Czarist regime surviving. We will still face a Russian revolution and it isn't that unreasonable for Lenin to find other means to return to the Soviet Union, and who knows, maybe this will cause something worse than WWII.

It's called Red Alert.

I still think this thread should be split.
Maybe not utter control in terms of sheer power, but they'd become far and away the most influential, and France would be severely marginalised. Germany could emerge frmo this more powerful than Britain itself, which is a definite no-no for the Brits.
Psh. The Brits have dealt with Continental hegemons before, sometimes on a fairly good basis. Like Russia after 1815, which vastly outmatched UK power. Yet the UK sided with the Russians more often than not in Continental disputes. And even Churchill admitted that the only direct German challenge to the Brits was the Hochseeflotte, which wasn't even a bone of contention after 1912.

On the other hand, saying crap like this means I start sounding like Niall Ferguson, which can't be good.
It's called Red Alert.
lolwut

I still think this thread should be split.

Psh. The Brits have dealt with Continental hegemons before, sometimes on a fairly good basis. Like Russia after 1815, which vastly outmatched UK power. Yet the UK sided with the Russians more often than not in Continental disputes. And even Churchill admitted that the only direct German challenge to the Brits was the Hochseeflotte, which wasn't even a bone of contention after 1912.

On the other hand, saying crap like this means I start sounding like Niall Ferguson, which can't be good.

lolwut
Germany's naval expansion puts them in a far different league than Czarist Russia. Of course, they'd need to begin expanding their fleet again, but I don't see them NOT doing that if they became dominant on the continent.

I wouldn't be so sure about that one. Yes perhaps Stalin and Lenin wouldn't have been involved, but after losing a war, I don't see the Czarist regime surviving. We will still face a Russian revolution and it isn't that unreasonable for Lenin to find other means to return to the Soviet Union, and who knows, maybe this will cause something worse than WWII.

Yeah but it was the Germans who sent Leni east. If Germany won the war this wouldn't have happened, and the USSR would never have formed and I would assume Germany would have defeated imperial Russia and installed puppets or something like that. Puppet rulers probably would have been better than Stalin.

But Lenin likely would have jumped if problems in Russia were brewing and I suspect he could have found away into Russia. Besides, Lenin is not a prerequisite for a communist government or Stalin. And I doubt the Germans would have attempted to replace the Czar. I suspect that they would have done more to try and prop him up than anything, yet the loss of another war would, IMO, most likely have broken their power in 1915 as the continuing war did later on.
Odds look clear that Russia was heading into trouble, and there is more than one way it could have gone wrong.

Russia wasn't that much of a threat to the rest of Europe, unlike a revived Germany under Hitler. The Germans did win the war in the east , but they lost the overall war. Didn't they more or less detach the Ukraine after 1917, but withdrew in 1918 after the armistice. Also would a victorious Imperial Germany allow a communist government to form in the east???

At worst assuming Germany occupied most of Europe in the event of a complete WW1 victory it probably wouldn't have lasted for much longer than a generation or so and would have been better IMHO than the post 1945 Soviet occupation of eastern europe. Things would have to go seriously pear shaped to have a worse result for the world than what happened historically. Compare how Imperial Germany treated occupied Africa/Europe to English imperialism or Soviet occupation policies post WW2. Foreign occupation is neer nice, but it usually doesn't last forever and can be better than the alternative- civil war or occupation by a more despotic regime.

Germany's naval expansion puts them in a far different league than Czarist Russia.
For a long time, that's what the British thought too. They had ceased to think that way by the start of the war.
Of course, they'd need to begin expanding their fleet again, but I don't see them NOT doing that if they became dominant on the continent.
They were still expanding their fleet, the point was that Britain didn't care anymore; they had beaten the Germans in terms of shipbuilding tempo, and the British and Germans were both aware of this and its corollary, that Britain's lead was only going to get bigger. This would not change if the Germans finished World War I in a few months in 1914.

Russia wasn't that much of a threat to the rest of Europe, unlike a revived Germany under Hitler. The Germans did win the war in the east , but they lost the overall war. Didn't they more or less detach the Ukraine after 1917, but withdrew in 1918 after the armistice. Also would a victorious Imperial Germany allow a communist government to form in the east???
They detached several other areas too, under "independent" governments.

At worst assuming Germany occupied most of Europe in the event of a complete WW1 victory it probably wouldn't have lasted for much longer than a generation or so and would have been better IMHO than the post 1945 Soviet occupation of eastern europe. Things would have to go seriously pear shaped to have a worse result for the world than what happened historically. Compare how Imperial Germany treated occupied Africa/Europe to English imperialism or Soviet occupation policies post WW2. Foreign occupation is neer nice, but it usually doesn't last forever and can be better than the alternative- civil war or occupation by a more despotic regime.
Yeah, Germany treated Africa great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide).

For a long time, that's what the British thought too. They had ceased to think that way by the start of the war.

They were still expanding their fleet, the point was that Britain didn't care anymore; they had beaten the Germans in terms of shipbuilding tempo, and the British and Germans were both aware of this and its corollary, that Britain's lead was only going to get bigger. This would not change if the Germans finished World War I in a few months in 1914.
Fair enough. Oh, and what's with the quotes?

No worse than English/Belgian/French imperialism in Africa or the English concentration camps of the Boer war. Not claiming imperialism is a good thing.

No worse than English/Belgian/French imperialism in Africa or the English concentration camps of the Boer war. Not claiming imperialism is a good thing.
The Boer concentration camps weren't genocide.

Russia wasn't that much of a threat to the rest of Europe, unlike a revived Germany under Hitler. The Germans did win the war in the east , but they lost the overall war. Didn't they more or less detach the Ukraine after 1917, but withdrew in 1918 after the armistice. Also would a victorious Imperial Germany allow a communist government to form in the east???
I doubt the requirements for peace would have been near as severe after an early victory. Sure border regions (say Russian Poland) would have been lost, but I doubt it would be near Brest-Litvosk). And if there is German intervention I seriously doubt that they would do anything other than re-install the Czar and future Czars could have been as bad as Stalin.
And it was shown that after WWI Russia wasn't the major player on teh continent, but if anyone started industrializing that could change pretty quickly.

In this situation you likely have France itching for revenge, creating a flashpoint if anything were to happen (such as Germany was involved putting down Russian rebels).

You have a continuing Ottoman Empire fighting its minorities and possibly descending into Civil War.

And beyond the immediate consequence we have no idea what would have happened. Maybe nuclear weapons would have been widely employed in a WWII delayed by a couple decades. Especially when such dramatic changes are being made.
I am sure if Germany had won, people wouldn't look back and say: "If the Allies had won the holocaust would have haooened."

The Boer concentration camps weren't genocide.

Only because the numbers involved in the tribes were very low. White wiped out various American Indian tribes, the English and Spanish in particular have alot more blood on their hands and probably the Belgians and French as well. Millions died and for what? Freedom erm no the USSR was born, a devastated France, and most of te client states in the east Germany created are independedent these days anyway. In most cases the disintegration o the Ottoman or Russian and Austria/Hungary empires just meant someone else got to opress the people instead of the central government.

The colonization of the Americas is estimated in about 100 million killed, or at least that I learned at school

That is the greatest estimate, based on ~110million people. Many disagree with that esticmate and put the population much lower, some as low as ~10million. I doubt either extreme is accurate.

Then you must remember that the vast majority (likely upwards of 80%) was due to disease. This was not intentional. Yes there may have been occasional instances when a person took it upon themselves to deliberately spread disease, and one case where the British Army tried (but the effect of that compared to other means of infection is questioned), but that was a small and likely insignificant minority. Most of these deaths, in fact, occurred before Europeans had any direct contact with a group arriving via trade.

I am not saying that the Europeans were kind, but with a few possible exceptions there was no deliberate attempt at genocide.

Well W1 era Germany tends to get painted with the same brush of WW2 era Nazi Germany. They were no better or worse in most regards than any other European imperialistic power. Any massacre gets called a genocide these days. The wiki article seemed to indicate ethnic cleansing more than genocide as the Germans were happy for the natives to go somewhere else, and stories ike that are a dime a dozen in the age of imperialism. Hell the English done something similar here with the Maori and disease wiped large amounts of them out as well.

yea .. in any case 100 million sounds totally out of control.

Like I said, that is the extreme high estimate. Half that is probably more realistic, and spread out over more than 300 years. We will never really know because many times the Europeans didn't care and because a great many of the deaths occurred before contact, so we have no good estimate of the actual population outside of areas of immediate and significant contact, and no usually even there.