well who do u think whear the good guys in ww1??

i think the cnetral powers wher the good guys!!

that damn surbian terorist org. (the black hand) killed the price of austia hungery! germany was just porteting her allie! the ottomans have for years been pushed around by uk and russia!!

so austria is doing what the us is doing today! surbian terorist atacks austra so thay invade wher thos terorist come from, afghan terorist atack us so us invades wher the afghan terorist come from!! austrai hungery, germany,ottoman empyer and bulgaria are the good guys in ww1 and uk, france, japan, russia, usa, belgum, ect wher the bad guys teaming up with the terorist!

Nobody was the good guys in WW1.

Kaiser Willem!

EDIT: Whoopsy, i thought it was who were the bad guys...

There were no good guys in my opinion. If any, probably the Americans (because of their post war niceties)

waht do u mean! he was good! thos damn subirans wher the ones who started the war!

This is just more anti-U.S. trolling on the part of Vietcong. He hates the U.S. no matter what we do, so answering him doesn't really change anything.

nope there were none- and certainlly not the germans as they introduced mustard gas

have u been falowing my threads or something??? im not ati us! im anti captialisam! for the real america is communist..


edit. musted gas had to have been used aginst the invaders of the father land

waht do u mean! he was good! thos damn subirans wher the ones who started the war!

No, it was the Austro-Hungarian's who started the war. They declared an ultimatum to the serbs, the serbs gave all they could in order to stick to the Axis' demands, but couldn't afford to. rmsharpe is right, you're just trolling.

no, im just makeiing a point! damn filthy propaganda has brain washed u all!

Back up your claims with facts and arguments, instead of accusing us of being 'brain-washed'. ;)

Otherwise I fear you'll not get anywhere. And pls keep it civil. Thanks.

- XIII

like what? its all facts were speaking, fact which happen to spell "jack ass" all over germany and austria0hungary for the fisrt world war

Vietcong, you may want to discuss questions like these in the History Forum instead ;)

never new ther was a history foam, i thot tis was the right place... but the facts are the Father land are the good guys and u have been blinded by propgnada!

then unleash your facts in defence of your father land (as it certainlly isnt mine, nor that of my ancestors)

Ok vietcong, What gave them the right to invade all of these countries?

If there was a bad guy, it was Britain, because they refused to back up France to Germany and thus made a German French invasion possible. They didn't even intervene to protect France, can you believe it - they intervened because the neutrality of the Lowlands had been violated!

And the same happened after the war. They refused to sign permanent protection pacts with France, and so did the USA, so France was basically alone on the continent and Nazism spread unchecked until Poland 1939...

So in reality it's all Britain's fault for allowing the wars, both of them, to happen.

/kidding

These sorts of arguments can be made for any of the Powers involved and believe me I've heard enough of them :vomit:

The truth is that there was no "good side". In WW1 both sides made use of the same blind patriotism and the same babyeating propaganda. It was a war for absolutely no reason at all.

hence everybody being :)

None of the sides that fought actually fought for good reasons. WW2 was clearly the result of WW1. Most of the sides used questionable types of naval warfare. It depends on whether you prefer Austria or Serbia. It's so obvious that almost every country was fighting for their alliance/attempting gain something from the war.

They had varying degrees of blame though, I would say the US was the most justified.

war for wars sake...hmmmmm.....

While in school, they do teach of how valiant the US was in riding to the rescue in World War I, I think no side was "right" or "good." These were a bunch of squabbling empires and states all trying to landgrab each other with millions of people sadly caught in between (especially those peoples caught in another nation, like the Polish, for instance). Even if you take away the fact that World War I did help set up the second war, it was just for land and resources and who had more toys than the other guy.

i say that the Ottoman Empire was bad since their goal was to take over other nations. Germany was just sticking up for thier ally, as was Austria-Hungary. The USA got attacked by Germany, so we had to enter the war. Basically, neither side, except for the Ottomans, was bad or good.

in te begining its debatable but at the end the bad guys were France and England, because they put all there u nreasonable sanctions on germany, emabarasing them and plunging the entire country into abject poverty, which is why the nazis came to power. Harding actually wanted the punishment on germany to be a bit less harsh but france and england refused.

Originally posted by Johann MacLeod
in te begining its debatable but at the end the bad guys were France and England, because they put all there u nreasonable sanctions on germany, emabarasing them and plunging the entire country into abject poverty, which is why the nazis came to power. Harding actually wanted the punishment on germany to be a bit less harsh but france and england refused.

no no non o!

it was nt the Franch or English it was the americas for bieng capitalst pigdogs!! :p

The new style is SO you, sharpie :p But we'd prefer it if you made your usual, understandably strenuous effort to speak English ;) ;)

France wanted a strict punishment, reparations, on Germany in order to totally render the German army harmless - unable to do anything. They needed this because England and USA refused to sign treaties promising to help France if Germany attacked again. England and USA refused to sign the treaties because they thought the harsh sanctions were unfair... etc. It all goes in circles.

The end result was that the allies abandoned France to being a plump target for Germany, the sanctions broke the back of the German economy, and when Hitler came, broke the treaty of versailles by remilitarizing and not paying reparations, NOBODY complained, not even England, and definitely not the Germans, who felt they were justified in throwing off the "yoke of reparations".

In other words, the failure to satisfactorily wrap up the loose ends of the first, pointless war made the situation perfect for Hitler to come along and unleash the second war.

god, wwi was stupid.

Moved to History...

There was no good side in that war and there wasn't even a solid reason for it. Nobody really wanted it but it was still most likely inevitable.
To say that the Allies were the "bad guys" goes too far in my opinion because the assasination of Sarajevo can hardly be seen as a justification for a war.
Still it is true that the opposite, which is often claimed in Western literature, namely that the Central Powers were the "bad guys" is indeed mainly propaganda and winners writing history.
This should have been seen by the end of the war already, that would have prevented alot to come.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
France wanted a strict punishment, reparations, on Germany in order to totally render the German army harmless - unable to do anything. They needed this because England and USA refused to sign treaties promising to help France if Germany attacked again. England and USA refused to sign the treaties because they thought the harsh sanctions were unfair... etc. It all goes in circles.

The end result was that the allies abandoned France to being a plump target for Germany, the sanctions broke the back of the German economy, and when Hitler came, broke the treaty of versailles by remilitarizing and not paying reparations, NOBODY complained, not even England, and definitely not the Germans, who felt they were justified in throwing off the "yoke of reparations".

In other words, the failure to satisfactorily wrap up the loose ends of the first, pointless war made the situation perfect for Hitler to come along and unleash the second war.


There were a number of different factors and issues that are easily and often confused:

(a) Reparations

(b) Security Constraints

(c) Revised Boundaries

REPARATIONS

The reparations imposed on the Germans after WW1 were less than the reparations imposed upon the French after the Franco-Prussians war of the 1870s. The French paid their reparations. The Germans did not. The Germans could have afforded to repay their reparations, although they might have needed to rechedule during the great depression after 1929, but simply choose not to.

The WW1 reparations were not a punishment; but were for damages mainly to Belgium (fully occupied) and France (partly occupied).

During WW1 the French and Italians ran out of money and borrowed from the British, but the British later ran out of money; so the British and the French borrowed from the USA. The total allied debt to the USA was significantly greater than the German reparations. While Americans heavily criticise the French for insisting upon reparations, President Woodrow Wilson was adamant that the Americans should be repaid. The Americans therefore agreed the reparations because if they did not, France might have become bankrupt and thus unable to pay the USA; so please understand that the main purpose of reparations was so that the USA would get its loans repaid.

SECURITY CONSTRAINTS

The security constraints consisted of:

(a) Limiting size of German Navy
(b) Limiting size of German army
(c) French garrisons across the Rhine
(d) The de-militirisation of the Rhineland.

None of these were an unfair or a threat to Germany.


REVISED BOUNDARIES

The creation of an independent Poland reduced the size of Germany and left small minorities of Germans in Poland.
The Germans did not like this. The only mistake made was
that Danzig was to be an international city. This and Fiume
(the other new international city) created a point for argument.

It would have been better if Danzig had gone entirely to the Poles and the Germans compensated with a sliver of land adjacent to their territories.

The primary German resentment was the splitting of Germany
into Prussia and the rest of Germany by the creation of an
independent Poland. However both the German government
and the USA had in WW1 promised Poland self determination.

One of the reasons why Britain and France were so poorly prepared for WW2 was because they had continued to repay debt to the USA despite not receiving payments from Germany.

If they had been at all smarter, Britain and France would have refused to pay the debt to the USA once the Germans defaulted (unless the USA committed to defend France e.g. maintaining their troop presence) and instead better used the money to modernise their military.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sims2789
i say that the Ottoman Empire was bad since their goal was to take over other nations. Germany was just sticking up for thier ally, as was Austria-Hungary. The USA got attacked by Germany, so we had to enter the war. Basically, neither side, except for the Ottomans, was bad or good. [/QUOT

the ottomans did not enter the war till everyone else had-so all those inocent people were already killing each other already. how was german helping to protect austro-hungary by invading belgian-i'm a little lost on that one. :confused:

Why some of the countries were wrong except for United States.

Russia: Obvious culpurt in the fact they were so obstinante in their willingness to destroy Germany with France. You think Russia was just simply protecting Serbia? I have a bridge to sell you then.

France: One of the least justified. Clearly a Germanphobe attitude led to this and the desire to be "the strongest state in Europe". Conspired to destroy Germany how lame.

Britain: Not as bad however you cannot ignore the fact the rushed into battle pointlessly thus showing they preferred one side(wrong side) over the other. Also they didn't give a **** about the United States during the battle or they wouldn't have commited so many trade violations. Aided the anti-German conspiracy.

Italy: A mercenary plain and simple. And a gambler to boot.

Germany: Somewhere in the middle of Russia and Britain since they should not have been willing to support Austria quite so much when there was little chance of winning.

Austria: The fact they would not leave Serbia alone was the main problem with their involvement.

Ottoman Empire: Hatred of the allies led them into the battle. That and an attempt to regain their empire.

United States: Justified Casus Beli due to the fact that both Britain and Germany were conducting trade warfare which was interferring with netrual rights. Leaving Europe to its own may have worked out in the long run however.

The WW1 reparations were not a punishment; but were for damages mainly to Belgium (fully occupied) and France (partly occupied).

From what I've read [which certainly may be less comprehensive than what you've read] it seems that Britain and USA wanted to mitigate the reparations but France wanted the whole thing. Why? One to have its revenge on Germany, two to make sure they never had the kind of economy that would support an army capable of invading France again.

France: One of the least justified. Clearly a Germanphobe attitude led to this and the desire to be "the strongest state in Europe". Conspired to destroy Germany how lame.

As lame as the Cold War? :mischief:

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate


[I]France: One of the least justified. Clearly a Germanphobe attitude led to this and the desire to be "the strongest state in Europe". Conspired to destroy Germany how lame.

As lame as the Cold War? :mischief:

Not as lame quite...... That time though the corrupt Soviet Union/Soviet Empire(they caused the Cold War yes :) ) was horrific which was worse than WW 1.

Destroying Germany weakened Europe massively.

One thing though: this was a different time period. Some things that we now consider "bad" were acceptable back then. A 1910's European would think nothing wrong with subjugating the African tribes (using that as an example).

It isn't a cut and dry subject, but I'm surprised by a lot of the myths tossed around above. First and foremost, this whole "Germany as victim of Versailles" thing is rich, smelly kaka, and you've all fallen for the Nazi version of events that pins the blame for Germany's problems on everyone else.

Germany suffered far more from 1945 than 1919. Economic assets were moved wholesale from the country, millions of people were forced from their homes to accommodate border changes, and Germany ceased to exist as a self-governing state. The 1945 peace was far more humiliating. Yet no one sits around saying "the allies started nazi germany in 1946." Reflect on that...

The real issue: how did the war become The War? Did Germany deserve "war guilt?"

Answer: while perhaps not guilty of everything, Germany certainly was the guiltiest party. While various actions in various countries contributed to the start of the war, the decisive factor in the spread of the war was Germany's predisposition toward aggression.

Steps:

1. Germany made it clear to Austria that it would support an Austrian invasion of Serbia to retaliate for the assassinations. While this is unwise, I don't think it was unfair. A "war against terror."
2. Russia mobilizes partially after Austria mobilizes to protect Serbia. Fair.

So far, this is all fair. What happens next? Germany institutes full mobilization against Russia AND France, despite the fact that France's treaty commitments to Russia are only defensive, and would not be activated against Germany in the event of Russian intervention in the Balkan crisis.

France then took steps to reduce tension on the border and avoid war, just as the British frantically but fitfully tried to organize peace confervences. But this proved irrelevant, since the very Prussian militarism that the allies demonized had already concluded that a war against one country should be an opportunity against everyone. German war plans made the invasion of three countries (France, Belgium, Luxembourg) not involved in the Balkan dispute inevitable.

In the end, the party that resorts to violence (and an invasion is resorting to violence) first when other means are available is defined as an AGGRESSOR. So frankly, the Germans had it coming. And they further added to this by instituting unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic.

The reason Versailles was a mistake was because they didn't do the math on the bonds and currency exchanges. Otherwise, if anything, Versailles was too lenient, because it allowed the forces of German militarism (like the Reichswehr) to remain intact as institutions. Which is precisely why the Allies learned something and made sure they didn't piss around when 1945 came along.

R.III

Feel free to point to the obvious flaw in my reasoning, although I don't think it changes anything. :D

The only thing I can't stand is that Germany got blamed for the war. If anyone is to blame, my opinion is either Serbia/Austria-Hungary. That's just my $.03.

I agree with RegentMan on that point. It was the Austria-Hungary who should be punished the most out of any Central Power. However, I also agree with all of FreeEnterprise's statements above. World War One was a pointless and destructive war which cost millions of lives. For example, in 1921, the ratio of men to women in France was 55% women, 45% men. This illustrates my sig perfectly, I just realized.

Well put Richard III

Originally posted by Vietcong
for the real america is communist..



:rotfl: :rotfl:

Good one!

LoL

Seriously, my answer is "no one". Good guy and bad guy are irrelevant popular imagery for the most part. History is about causes and effects, and has nothing in the slightest to do with concepts such as "Good and "Bad" or "Good" and "Evil".

Demagogical attempts at dividing wars between "good" and "bad" guys are just a waste of time politicians and ultranationalists indulge in to make themselves and their countries look good (and countries they dislike look bad).

Note that by the above, I'm not excluding that there are actions that are right or wrong by the morals of their times (the morals of our time being pathetically irellevant in those cases).

But good and bad or good and evil just doesn't belong in history. Leave that to fantasy where it belongs.

Only by analyzing the CAUSES and JUSTIFICATIONS (wheter we agree with them or not) behind actions instead of necessarily pegging them as the actions of madmen or "evil people" can we really begin to show the slightest understanding of history.

Originally posted by RegentMan
The only thing I can't stand is that Germany got blamed for the war. If anyone is to blame, my opinion is Serbia. That's just my $.03.

"War Guilt" is always a sticky subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a terrorist assasinated Archduke Ferdinand, not the Serbian government? Austria had the right to demand some penalty, but they certainly overreacted. There was essentially equal guilt on all sides.

R.III, you have strong arguments, but Russia began mobilizing before Germany, and they (Russia) could have called it off beforehand, Austria-Hungary overreacted, etc. to start the war. In the face of all this, Germany may have been the guiltiest party, but it is not 'certain', as you put it.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Well put Richard III

I disagree. He's putting too much blame on Germany and not enough of Russia, Serbia, or Austria-Hungary. Not to mention France.

France mobilized before Germany (or at least "pre-mobilized") and Russia would not back down, even after numerous attempts by Wilhelm to Nicholas to tell him to stand down. Yet, Russia couldn't afford to simply do that, since she was way too industrially challenged, mobilization would take far longer for here than another nation (that, coupled with her size and the fact that there were still many troops in the east prepared against Japan).

This site really explains the events leading up to the war in those fateful summer months :

http://www.worldwar1.com/tlplot.htm

In addition, I think that all powers were to blame to some extent (even the GB, who refused to tell anyone who she was actually allied with etc.)

In world war one, there was a big public hurrah in Germany. Soldiers did depart with much fanfare.

If any nation finds itself in the need to wage war, the only mental state to do this can be a grim resolution.

It's very dubious when people cheer at war.

Originally posted by smalltalk
In world war one, there was a big public hurrah in Germany. Soldiers did depart with much fanfare.

If any nation finds itself in the need to wage war, the only mental state to do this can be a grim resolution.

It's very dubious when people cheer at war.

Those were very different times. All nations did that (Even France, "To Berlin!")

In the history of civilizations and nations, war has always incited patriotic fervor and zeal. That was nothing new. In fact, it was beginning to get old after that.

Originally posted by sims2789
i say that the Ottoman Empire was bad since their goal was to take over other nations. Germany was just sticking up for thier ally, as was Austria-Hungary. The USA got attacked by Germany, so we had to enter the war. Basically, neither side, except for the Ottomans, was bad or good.

I think all of the sides were bad. They were all land hungry, imperialistic dogs who only believed in superiority to the rest of the world. The Russians fought for revenge and land. Revenge for running from the Germans in the Balkan crisis' of 1900-1913. They also fought not to protect their fellow Slavs, they just wanted the Slavic lands for themselves.
France fought because of the Triple Entente treaty and to gain back the territory taken by Germany, Alsauez-Lorraine, in the Franco- Prussian war of 1870 iniatiated by Bismarck to unite Germany.
The British fought so that the Germans wouldn't threaten their massive colonial empire. And cause Kaiser Wilhelm couldn't shut up about Germany's extravagance.
Austria fought cause their Prince was assasinated. The Archduke Ferdinand had made it almost public to create a triple empire called Austria-Hungary-Serbia.
And Serbia should be blamed since they knew who and what the assasin was up to.

Originally posted by ss3goku
The British fought so that the Germans wouldn't threaten their massive colonial empire. And cause Kaiser Wilhelm couldn't shut up about Germany's extravagance.
Britain also declared war because it had promised protection to Belgium. When Germany invaded Belgium, Britain kept her promise.

Originally posted by RegentMan

Britain also declared war because it had promised protection to Belgium. When Germany invaded Belgium, Britain kept her promise.

If only the British had done the same for Tibet during the Chinese invasion, but that's another story entirely.

Originally posted by ss3goku
If only the British had done the same for Tibet during the Chinese invasion, but that's another story entirely.

What a fascinating thing for someone from Beijing to write.

Please explain this (I'm not being sarcastic)...

My step-great-grandfather was a military attache to Tibet; the UK certainly helped build the Tibetan army, but rushing to its defence wasn't exactly practical....?

Originally posted by Benderino
I disagree. He's putting too much blame on Germany and not enough of Russia, Serbia, or Austria-Hungary. Not to mention France.

France mobilized before Germany (or at least "pre-mobilized") and Russia would not back down, even after numerous attempts by Wilhelm to Nicholas to tell him to stand down. Yet, Russia couldn't afford to simply do that, since she was way too industrially challenged, mobilization would take far longer for here than another nation (that, coupled with her size and the fact that there were still many troops in the east prepared against Japan).

This site really explains the events leading up to the war in those fateful summer months :

http://www.worldwar1.com/tlplot.htm

In addition, I think that all powers were to blame to some extent (even the GB, who refused to tell anyone who she was actually allied with etc.)

In truth, I think all of the countries involved made mistakes, but that doesn't mean that some degree of "guilt" can't be assigned for keeping the chain of events that made those mistakes possible going. And actually, I find that the website above reinforces my arguments; particularly note the following:

Germany officially and publicly advises Austria against British mediation.

Jagow warns Grey that if Germany mobilizes, France, current threat or not, would be attacked per Germany's war plan.

In a final attempt to avert war, Bethmann-Hollweg goes against earlier German advice and wires Berchtold that he should accept the British offer of mediation. Berchtold declines.

That said, I'd also like to comb this more carefully with a "blue book" in front of me, because this website is not credible. Seems to be some careless errors, such as the obvious one below:


Germany issues an ultimatum to France: declare neutrality within 18 hours and hand over the frontier forts at Liege and Namur in a show of good faith. [ø view text of the Italian declaration]


Not the Italian declaration, so much as the appeal for Liege and Namur, which are, of course, Belgian, not French. The actual appeal was for Toul and Verdun. Sloppy, just like missing any reference to France's "good faith" 10-km withdrawal from the frontier, hardly a sign of aggressive French intent.

Finally, while it might have been USEFUL for London to have provided assurances that it would enter the war, doing so would have ruined its efforts to preserve peace by destroying its status as a potential (and traditional) mediator. And for the purposes of "guilt," since when is aggression the fault of a country simply by virtue of its failure to say "we will enter the war against you if you do it?" It's like saying a murder is the fault of the police for not being present at the scene, or saying that WWII is America's fault because they never provided notice that they would help to defeat Germany in advance of doing so.

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III

Finally, while it might have been USEFUL for London to have provided assurances that it would enter the war, doing so would have ruined its efforts to preserve peace by destroying its status as a potential (and traditional) mediator. And for the purposes of "guilt," since when is aggression the fault of a country simply by virtue of its failure to say "we will enter the war against you if you do it?" It's like saying a murder is the fault of the police for not being present at the scene, or saying that WWII is America's fault because they never provided notice that they would help to defeat Germany in advance of doing so.

R.III

Meh...

WWII was a very different war. I'm just saying that it's a possibility that if GB had stated its intent, that might've made Germany rethink about its war plans. Didn't many of the Germans feel that the Gnlish might've still joined their side (The whole Anglo-Germanic brotherhood thing)?

Taht thing about Italy might very well have been a type-o of sorts. Sloppy? Maybe, yet I have had history teachers who were pure genius's and their handwriting was "sloppy" almost to the point of illegibility. Einstein was "sloppy" but he too was a genius.

Anyway, sorry about that rant, I hope I'm not coming off as angry or anything. :)

I still think Serbia holds the most responsibility, mainly because it was her fault for starting the regional conflict which spurned a continental conflict, which lead to a world war...yada yada yada.

The Serbian government aided the terrorist groups (such as the Black Hand) by allowing them to slip into the Austrian border, as well as helping supply many of the terrorists. The Austrian ultimatum wasn't meant to be agreed upon, that I agree with, but would the conflict have happened if Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated by a Serb? I don't believe it was inevitable.

Originally posted by naervod
I agree with RegentMan on that point. It was the Austria-Hungary who should be punished the most out of any Central Power.

Austria hungary was punished the most, it lost all of its empire

there all guilty, nobody tried to stop it or back down, they all gladly followed the leader to the slaughter:sheep:

Originally posted by pawpaw
there all guilty, nobody tried to stop it or back down, they all gladly followed the leader to the slaughter:sheep:

Perhaps if you'd read (a) the thread (b) the history, you'd know that actually isn't true. :D Sort of deflates your argument, I know, having all these messy facts in the way.

Ben, getting the ultimatum wrong and locating the demands in the wrong country on a site that claims to offer a factual list is not simply a handwriting issue.

Whew. Now that my rant is finished, Benderino, I don't actually mind pointing a finger at Servia; I think - particularly with many decades of history to follow - that it's fair to say that Serbian nationalism has a way of losing perspective, and "A war against terrorism" might not be so crazy a description of Austria's behavior.

(yes, I know, from THAT perspective it's all Russia's fault. Know that half of my argument above was a rare attempt to be a genuine devil's advocate, I think people take the "just a pointless war" attitude about WWI just a bit too thoughtlessly is all).

R.III

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard III
[B]

Perhaps if you'd read (a) the thread , did read it (b) the history, did read it you'd know that actually isn't true. :D Sort of deflates your argument, I know, having all these messy facts in the way.
never stopped you

no need to be snotty about it, a simple i disagree because....... would of worked:D

Originally posted by Richard III




Whew. Now that my rant is finished, Benderino, I don't actually mind pointing a finger at Servia; I think - particularly with many decades of history to follow - that it's fair to say that Serbian nationalism has a way of losing perspective, and "A war against terrorism" might not be so crazy a description of Austria's behavior.

(yes, I know, from THAT perspective it's all Russia's fault. Know that half of my argument above was a rare attempt to be a genuine devil's advocate, I think people take the "just a pointless war" attitude about WWI just a bit too thoughtlessly is all).

R.III

So do you blame Serbia or not? The first paragraph says 'yes' the second 'no'.

When did I say it was "just a pointless war"? I don't recall :hmm:

well, the black hand was covered by the serbian politicians (every f****** nation covered their nationalistic groups). otherwise the "casa austria" would never had adressed their ultimatum to serbia. austria/hungaria wasn't bad, it was just stupid the century before, as it lost russia as ally (after 1848 they really messed up their foreingn-politics)...

the war would have happened anyway. the european nations would have joined it one by one anyway, with or without the assassination in sarajevo. there were too many other interests in game. they saw good points and reasons to start ww 1.

and though i think todays american politic is much too nationalistic, i'd say, the americans (especially wilson) was on the right way to stop a next world war, but europe (especially france and italy) thought to know it better.

anyway you won't find any very bad guys, as every nation did their best to go to war. and wilson was maybe one of the few good guys.

Pawpaw, er, he he. :D

Originally posted by Benderino
So do you blame Serbia or not? The first paragraph says 'yes' the second 'no'.

I would say that by the standards of the day, Austria-Hungary's ultimatum against Serbia was a just one, and the war that followed began as a just war. Serbia was grossly irresponsible.

But I don't blame Serbia for the EXPANSION of the war, since the Serbian-Austrian contest could easily have been contained (and should have been).

Originally posted by Benderino
When did I say it was "just a pointless war"? I don't recall :hmm:

I didn't say you said that. I meant that I weighed in on this thread because it seemed like the general mood was "everybody sucked except Wilson ( :lol: )" without any willingness on anyone's part to actually look at the moral distinctions between the very different actions of the many parties.

R.III

I not to clear on WW1, not having intensley studied it.....but I am clear on WW2, which I have studied closely. But you don't even need to study it to know....

Neither side was either. Nations are "good" or "bad" those are human traits.

Originally posted by Drusus
well, the black hand was covered by the serbian politicians (every f****** nation covered their nationalistic groups). otherwise the "casa austria" would never had adressed their ultimatum to serbia. austria/hungaria wasn't bad, it was just stupid the century before, as it lost russia as ally (after 1848 they really messed up their foreingn-politics)...

the war would have happened anyway. the european nations would have joined it one by one anyway, with or without the assassination in sarajevo. there were too many other interests in game. they saw good points and reasons to start ww 1.

and though i think todays american politic is much too nationalistic, i'd say, the americans (especially wilson) was on the right way to stop a next world war, but europe (especially france and italy) thought to know it better.

anyway you won't find any very bad guys, as every nation did their best to go to war. and wilson was maybe one of the few good guys.

Yeah, i remembered the conflict in the Balkans, the Crimean war i think. The French and British were kicking Russia's ass and they needed help from Austria, who declined, majorly pissing off Russia.
And Austria wasn't the only nation that lost all of its empire, so did the Turks from the Ottoman empire.

The Crimean War was in the Crimea, not the Balkans...

I think the point that has been overlooked here is that no one -- not Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, or Britain, believed that the war would become so large or so long. Wars had been fought over the entire continent of Europe for thousands of years, most recently involving Napoleon and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. I think the most significant fault that led to the horrific event of World War 1 was the inability of all of the leaders to recognize that recent innovations (larger artillery, machine guns, et al) had made the potential for massive casualties in a war much greater. None of the leaders knew "what they were getting into." The old maxim stands true... "Generals always prepare for the last war..." (hence the Maginot Line).

To be fair, the Germans definitely never intended the war to degenerate into the horrors of trench warfare. How can we judge the Germans and Austrians as being any more wrong than Napoleon? Regardless of who is "to blame," Europe holistically paid the price. In 1914, Europe was the undoubted superpower. They held the world in their hands. By 1918, that had been irrevocablly lost.

Interesting reading: The Guns of August, Barbara W. Tuchman

Originally posted by Richard III
Pawpaw, er, he he. :D



I would say that by the standards of the day, Austria-Hungary's ultimatum against Serbia was a just one, and the war that followed began as a just war. Serbia was grossly irresponsible.

But I don't blame Serbia for the EXPANSION of the war, since the Serbian-Austrian contest could easily have been contained (and should have been).



I didn't say you said that. I meant that I weighed in on this thread because it seemed like the general mood was "everybody sucked except Wilson ( :lol: )" without any willingness on anyone's part to actually look at the moral distinctions between the very different actions of the many parties.

R.III

I agree with that, it wasn't Serbias fault for enlargening the war, however, it was her fault for starting it :p

Point #2, I understand. :)

Originally posted by wildWolverine
The Crimean War was in the Crimea, not the Balkans...

I think the point that has been overlooked here is that no one -- not Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, or Britain, believed that the war would become so large or so long. Wars had been fought over the entire continent of Europe for thousands of years, most recently involving Napoleon and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. I think the most significant fault that led to the horrific event of World War 1 was the inability of all of the leaders to recognize that recent innovations (larger artillery, machine guns, et al) had made the potential for massive casualties in a war much greater. None of the leaders knew "what they were getting into." The old maxim stands true... "Generals always prepare for the last war..." (hence the Maginot Line).

To be fair, the Germans definitely never intended the war to degenerate into the horrors of trench warfare. How can we judge the Germans and Austrians as being any more wrong than Napoleon? Regardless of who is "to blame," Europe holistically paid the price. In 1914, Europe was the undoubted superpower. They held the world in their hands. By 1918, that had been irrevocablly lost.

Interesting reading: The Guns of August, Barbara W. Tuchman

It wasn't just the weapons part, but it was partly Bismarck's blame. When he sent the Prussian forces to destroy France, Austria, and Denmark, he did it so fast that entire wars were over within weeks. The Crimean war also ended fast, as did all other wars of the period except America's Civil War.

Excellent point about the perceived rapidity of wars. However, I don't know if you can "blame" Bismarck for keeping his wars short! :)

Originally posted by wildWolverine
I think the point that has been overlooked here is that no one -- not Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, or Britain, believed that the war would become so large or so long.

I'm not sure I agree. Kitchener advised the UK cabinet that the war would last two years or longer at a minimum, and a large body of literature at the time predicted that industrial power, conscripted armies and increased firepower meant that the destructive length and damage from war would increase dramatically.

If leaders chose to ignore that information, it's a mistake, not an excuse.

My apologies. I did not intend to excuse them, but to indeed point out their mistake. However, in internal memos, the Austrian leaders professed their intention to have a "bright little spring war" with Serbia to avenge the death of Ferdinand. Perhaps they would not have initiated such action had they had precognition...

Someone above here <too lazy to scroll up> mentioned "following to the slaughter." While this isn't entirely accurate, nationalism did indeed play a role as well -- cran/elan and all that -- that was one factor that increased the willingness of several countries, France in particular, to hold up their alliances -- something they had not bothered to do in the past (or future for that matter. Sudetenland (sp?) anyone?)

yea, Bismarck is not to blame and he is my role model, that guy was very clever, remember the Elms Telegram? He made the French declare war. Then the French were like, we have a couple of weeks to prepare, but the Prussian forces were already prepared and destroyed all forces of the French. Also, the "blanck check" that Germany gave to Austria has been proven by many historians to show that the Germans partly knew that a global conflict was possible. Also on short wars, many nations before the war werern't worried about the length since the theory, "if nations continue fighting, they cannot possibly have the industrial capacity for a long war." True and proven because after the war, nearly every economy in Europe was losing to American competition, dues, and the war that had happened. All the soldiers returning home found many of their jobs taken.

Originally posted by wildWolverine
My apologies. I did not intend to excuse them, but to indeed point out their mistake. However, in internal memos, the Austrian leaders professed their intention to have a "bright little spring war" with Serbia to avenge the death of Ferdinand. Perhaps they would not have initiated such action had they had precognition...

Denial was a major part of WWI; a failure to accept facts by several general staffers. They had no excuse not to know how things would turn out, or at least consider that the worst-case scenario had a real chance to play out. These memos you mention merely attest to that.