First World War officially ends

[R 105]

You have a point about Hitler being a good talker and not a good manager of the war. He was the best friend the Allies had. What I have always had a hard time rapping my brain around is the wasted resources. In 1944 and 45 while losing the war. Hitler and his circle of cronies were were using trains railways fuel and man power transporting the Jews to death camps while his Army were short of everything on all fronts.

He policies drove the very people who helped make Germany's industry great to America and other Allied countries before the war. That is why we had the bomb and Hitler didn't. Read, Strategy For defeat The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 by Williamson Murray. It does not deal with the why Hitler did what he did to the Jews. It does deal with the mind set of Hitler and his approaches to the war and manufacturing of war materials like air craft.

It is a dry read but it is an eye opener to some of the reasons Germany lost the war and how little Hitler understood what Germany should have been doing early on. I think this book is still in print give it read.

[SEseph]

...er...I'm missing your point.  You've quoted the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia, which was self-serving and which even the Austrians didn't expect the Serbs to accept (for obvious reasons).

- oldman

It was to back my statement about them seaking restitution, but it was a little over the top. The reason for it's extreme was so Serbia couldn't/wouldn't meet them so Austria-Hungary could use it as a means to start a localized war. The problem, and Britain's responsibility, come into play at the start of the conflict. Allow me to break it down so we're both on the same page, even if the theory is in dispute.

Austria-Hungary threatens Serbia after the assassination. Russia begins to mobilize as a result because of their alliance with Serbia. It will take Russia 6 weeks to mobilize for war.

Germany takes the Russian's mobilization as an act of aggression toward her Allie, Austria-Hungary and declares war as was due in her alliance declaration. Italy does not take part in the mobilization, citing the clause she agreed to that say for defense only; she saw Austria-Hungary as an aggressor.

France, seeking revenge for the war in 1870, declares war citing her alliance with Russia. France's entire military strategy is focused on recovering Lorraine and (I forget) as they were taken in the previous war.

Britian enters the war, which brings in her Commonwealth Nations and territories. Japan enters the war due to her obligation via treaty with Britian and a common desire to stop Germany from acquiring colonies the the Pacific. China enters the war due to similar treaties. So begins a true world war.

Britiain entered more on fear of Germany's attempt to control the oceans. This spawned the HMS Dreadnaught. By the end of the war, Britian had spawned double the Battleships that Germany did.

Germany desire through the war was to seize African territories and some Pacific Territories. A Napoleonic ambition to say the least, but Germany was unwilling to incite war without cause. Her treaty gave her such.

The largest world Super Power at any point though, could have stepped in and condemned Serbia for their actions and sided with the side that had been attacked, yet she acted out of fear, tipping the balance to an equal field. When the war started, the Navy's of Britian and Germany were of similar size, Germany had beaten France before, and had some of the best fighting units on the planet. They had little fear of being over run by Russia or France.

It would have been a European war if Britian had stayed out of it, or even sided with Austria-Hungary saying Serbia's actions were wrong. Maybe not fully backing the demands of A-H, but just stepping in would have changed the dynamics more than we could ever fathom. Britian made the war. Britian was the cop on the corner telling the burglar he was okay to leave while handcuffing the home owner for trying to stop the theft...

A second war was possible beyond the Great War even with what I have suggested, but war was possible from 1947-199(1)? with a little chilly war. Yet a second war wouldn't have brought Hitler because the devastation was what allowed him to slip into power. A day difference might have saved the world.. or destroyed it. We can be certain, Hitler would not have entered the Field in the same manner because the events leading up to his assention to Nazi party leader and then fuhrer were A: He fought in the Great War, B: Saw the devastation wrought by the treaty and the war, and C: Loathing of the Jewish people. Now, if you remove the first two, which would have kept the Nazi's a small party, all you have is a painter who is antisemitic. We have those here in America and I haven't seen one yet viewed as sane enough to lead us no matter what type of government. Hitler played on emotion, emotion only made available by such misery as that created by WWI.

Britain's leadership was the cause. The soldiers were brave on both sides, each doing his duty, each equal in honor and valor. 

[Masherbrum]

Britian started it. While Austria-Hungary made a few demands that were over the top, they were not wrong in their desire to want restitution. At that time, the German, Austria-Hungary alliance was tipping the balance of power. Had Britian stepped in and said the demands were a bit out of line, but not exactly wrong, the war never would have begun. Yet Britian threw her weight behind Serbia and the Allies, forcing a balance of power, there by inciting the war.

This is a highly debated topic and you can find more and more students of history throwing their weight behind such an idea. Serbia fired the first shot, but Britian condoned the shot and encouraged it.

Pass me whatever you're smoking please.   

[Masherbrum]

Alsace-Lorraine was lost by the French in the "Franco-Prussian War" from 1870-1871.   But that wasn't the only thing aggravating the French from joining the Entente Powers.

[FLOTSOM]

It was to back my statement about them seaking restitution, but it was a little over the top. The reason for it's extreme was so Serbia couldn't/wouldn't meet them so Austria-Hungary could use it as a means to start a localized war. The problem, and Britain's responsibility, come into play at the start of the conflict. Allow me to break it down so we're both on the same page, even if the theory is in dispute.

Austria-Hungary threatens Serbia after the assassination. Russia begins to mobilize as a result because of their alliance with Serbia. It will take Russia 6 weeks to mobilize for war.

Germany takes the Russian's mobilization as an act of aggression toward her Allie, Austria-Hungary and declares war as was due in her alliance declaration. Italy does not take part in the mobilization, citing the clause she agreed to that say for defense only; she saw Austria-Hungary as an aggressor.

France, seeking revenge for the war in 1870, declares war citing her alliance with Russia. France's entire military strategy is focused on recovering Lorraine and (I forget) as they were taken in the previous war.

Britian enters the war, which brings in her Commonwealth Nations and territories. Japan enters the war due to her obligation via treaty with Britian and a common desire to stop Germany from acquiring colonies the the Pacific. China enters the war due to similar treaties. So begins a true world war.

Britiain entered more on fear of Germany's attempt to control the oceans. This spawned the HMS Dreadnaught. By the end of the war, Britian had spawned double the Battleships that Germany did.

Germany desire through the war was to seize African territories and some Pacific Territories. A Napoleonic ambition to say the least, but Germany was unwilling to incite war without cause. Her treaty gave her such.

The largest world Super Power at any point though, could have stepped in and condemned Serbia for their actions and sided with the side that had been attacked, yet she acted out of fear, tipping the balance to an equal field. When the war started, the Navy's of Britian and Germany were of similar size, Germany had beaten France before, and had some of the best fighting units on the planet. They had little fear of being over run by Russia or France.

It would have been a European war if Britian had stayed out of it, or even sided with Austria-Hungary saying Serbia's actions were wrong. Maybe not fully backing the demands of A-H, but just stepping in would have changed the dynamics more than we could ever fathom. Britian made the war. Britian was the cop on the corner telling the burglar he was okay to leave while handcuffing the home owner for trying to stop the theft...

A second war was possible beyond the Great War even with what I have suggested, but war was possible from 1947-199(1)? with a little chilly war. Yet a second war wouldn't have brought Hitler because the devastation was what allowed him to slip into power. A day difference might have saved the world.. or destroyed it. We can be certain, Hitler would not have entered the Field in the same manner because the events leading up to his assention to Nazi party leader and then fuhrer were A: He fought in the Great War, B: Saw the devastation wrought by the treaty and the war, and C: Loathing of the Jewish people. Now, if you remove the first two, which would have kept the Nazi's a small party, all you have is a painter who is antisemitic. We have those here in America and I haven't seen one yet viewed as sane enough to lead us no matter what type of government. Hitler played on emotion, emotion only made available by such misery as that created by WWI.

Britain's leadership was the cause. The soldiers were brave on both sides, each doing his duty, each equal in honor and valor. 

well thought out and very well put! i concur, 

[FLOTSOM]

You have a point about Hitler being a good talker and not a good manager of the war. He was the best friend the Allies had. What I have always had a hard time rapping my brain around is the wasted resources. In 1944 and 45 while losing the war. Hitler and his circle of cronies were were using trains railways fuel and man power transporting the Jews to death camps while his Army were short of everything on all fronts.

He policies drove the very people who helped make Germany's industry great to America and other Allied countries before the war. That is why we had the bomb and Hitler didn't. Read, Strategy For defeat The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 by Williamson Murray. It does not deal with the why Hitler did what he did to the Jews. It does deal with the mind set of Hitler and his approaches to the war and manufacturing of war materials like air craft.

It is a dry read but it is an eye opener to some of the reasons Germany lost the war and how little Hitler understood what Germany should have been doing early on. I think this book is still in print give it read.

i will read it if i find it. thanks

[Pigslilspaz]

Woodrow Wilson almost single handled caused the rise of Hitler and WWII with this Treaty of Versailles and his League of Nations. Had Wilson not entered WWI and up set the balance of power. All sides would have ran out of steam and had an armistice by 1919. Everyone would have gone home and history would have went another way. What Woodrow Wilson did in WWI caused not only WWII but the cold war the Korean war the Vietnam war and about any thing else related to the rise of Fascism and Communism world wide including here is the USA. Not just the Germans got screwed by Wilson and his progressive agenda at Versailles France  in 1919, we all did.

Please tell me where you heard this, as it is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

[RufusLeaking]

This thread is the best read in the last six months.  

We can be certain, Hitler would not have entered the Field in the same manner because the events leading up to his assention to Nazi party leader and then fuhrer were A: He fought in the Great War, B: Saw the devastation wrought by the treaty and the war, and C: Loathing of the Jewish people.

The Nazis also played on fear of Communism, which was seen as a viable system back then.  Would Lenin have been transported to Russia had the British 'stayed aloof?'  If there was an armistice in 1919 without an unconditional surrender, what about the formation of Poland, and the complete redraw of the maps in Eastern Europe?

This is a tough 'what if' scenario.

[SEseph]

Pass me whatever you're smoking please.   

I know you're up to this argument beyond petty jabs. Why is your argument better than mine? I don't discount that what we have been taught is true, but I also am open to new ideas on how to interpret history. I know that England sided with France for what ever reason, but the discussion is on what event was the largest straw on the camels back, and what events are worth studying for possible future knowledge so as to prevent a similar occurrence. Everyone cites lessons from WWII such as "we don't appease nations with territory. We don't perform Genocide etc etc etc.." But we never look at it with praise for the enemy. Germany, they taught us modern war. Quick fast, and before a time when we had the ability to utterly destroy ourselves. The gave us Rockets, the Enigma machine and the Volkswagen 'The people's Car.' These wars also halted a global depression, created the baby boom. I am a product of a baby boomer, my granfather became a dad 9 months to the day of his return home. I know most of you are a product of such. Listen to the good of both sides, and accept both sides will be ugly under screwtiny. Look at our treatment of Africans and Japanese. That is not a toughted topic until recently. If we look at it solely from the winner's side, which let's face it, is slightly biased, you will see by proxy it will effect current and future though patterns and moral standing. We don't believe in a Master Race, but if Germany had won, the thinking today would be drastically different. You would then argue, "I wouldn't do it, I'd stop those heathens," but then you are doing nothing but looking at it with today's eyes, when it was meant for yesterday's.

History must be looked at it from the point of view of the people living it. Morals, ethics, meaning and understanding are distorted by time to evolve into something new very rapidly. I do not discount any of the facts, I just believe my interpretation of it happens to be the most probable. Show me the errors and I will concede the point.

[Masherbrum]

I know you're up to this argument beyond petty jabs. Why is your argument better than mine? I don't discount that what we have been taught is true, but I also am open to new ideas on how to interpret history. I know that England sided with France for what ever reason, but the discussion is on what event was the largest straw on the camels back, and what events are worth studying for possible future knowledge so as to prevent a similar occurrence. Everyone cites lessons from WWII such as "we don't appease nations with territory. We don't perform Genocide etc etc etc.." But we never look at it with praise for the enemy. Germany, they taught us modern war. Quick fast, and before a time when we had the ability to utterly destroy ourselves. The gave us Rockets, the Enigma machine and the Volkswagen 'The people's Car.' These wars also halted a global depression, created the baby boom. I am a product of a baby boomer, my granfather became a dad 9 months to the day of his return home. I know most of you are a product of such. Listen to the good of both sides, and accept both sides will be ugly under screwtiny. Look at our treatment of Africans and Japanese. That is not a toughted topic until recently. If we look at it solely from the winner's side, which let's face it, is slightly biased, you will see by proxy it will effect current and future though patterns and moral standing. We don't believe in a Master Race, but if Germany had won, the thinking today would be drastically different. You would then argue, "I wouldn't do it, I'd stop those heathens," but then you are doing nothing but looking at it with today's eyes, when it was meant for yesterday's.

History must be looked at it from the point of view of the people living it. Morals, ethics, meaning and understanding are distorted by time to evolve into something new very rapidly. I do not discount any of the facts, I just believe my interpretation of it happens to be the most probable. Show me the errors and I will concede the point.

You wish to Blame Wilson, for all events including the Vietnam War.   You need your head examined and so does the Professor/Author of that "theory".   But trying to pass off the "theory" as Gospel, is totally different.   

Germany never STOPPED building their arsenal.   I guess this is the one thing you don't realize.   

[Furball]

Britian started it. While Austria-Hungary made a few demands that were over the top, they were not wrong in their desire to want restitution. At that time, the German, Austria-Hungary alliance was tipping the balance of power. Had Britian stepped in and said the demands were a bit out of line, but not exactly wrong, the war never would have begun. Yet Britian threw her weight behind Serbia and the Allies, forcing a balance of power, there by inciting the war.

This is a highly debated topic and you can find more and more students of history throwing their weight behind such an idea. Serbia fired the first shot, but Britian condoned the shot and encouraged it.

Who/what is Britian?

[SEseph]

You wish to Blame Wilson, for all events including the Vietnam War.  You need your head examined and so does the Professor/Author of that "theory".   But trying to pass off the "theory" as Gospel, is totally different.   

Germany never STOPPED building their arsenal.   I guess this is the one thing you don't realize.   

No, each event effects each other, and each is interdependant. You know, a butterfly flaps over here and over there it makes a hurricane or some jazz. Here, since you wish me to blame Wilson....

I blame the current recession on the housing markets, the housing market rose and started becoming corrupt when the democrats failed to win the election which I blame on Gore's personality not being there and the electoral college. Since the electoral college was a creation of our forefathers, I can there by blame every problem in the United Stated on our fore fathers, who also made Britain lose their profitable colonies, reducing their strength in the new world which they had maintained in a rush with the French, Dutch and Spain. This was caused by those explorers discovering the continent, which was fueled by a desire to get to China faster than the silk road. China had the goods Europe wanted because the unification of china under that one emperor. This was started over territorial disputes which are ingrained in our being as most animals do such. So, since we are a product of evolution, I guess the primordial ooze is to blame, but it was created on the planet earth which collected lots of dust particles during the early expansion of the solar system. But this was due to some big bang thing..

So.. I say the current economic depression was caused by the big bang. TOP THAT. 

Look hard enough you can correlate everything with everything. Again, read my argument. it has little to do with Wilson. Wilson came to power after being a governor, remember, in 1913. This was well after most every event leading to WWI was already in play. You also have yet to give me an argument aside from the "I'm right because I can yell louder" game. I don't care if you are right, give me a reason my argument is WRONG. You are using your ideals as your gospel screaming I am wrong... Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

Who/what is Britian?

It is a spelling mistake. If you can't seem to bypass such inconsequential errors, you're not up to the demands of any sort of useful opinion on this subject.

[Masherbrum]

I never said "my stance", so how am I a hypocrite because your theory has too many holes?

[SEseph]

I never said "my stance", so how am I a hypocrite because your theory has too many holes?

How do I know your stance? Here's how even though you never said it (it's called an observation of behavior)... You have repeatedly said my idea was wrong, so I know your stance is different than mine. Infact, with the aggression you use to attack it, you seem pretty resolute in showing me how wrong I am.

How are you being hypocritical? You are so adamant your stance, what ever it is, is right, and like I just said, the aggressive force with which you back it is almost like that of a zealot. So if you accuse me of preaching gospel, then I can state the same. I personally like stimulating conversation that makes you think, even if you don't agree. All I see from you is attacks, and they are kind of empty of facts. They are definitely full of anger, but I don't care about that. Give me something with some logical reasoning. That is also why, atm, your argument has holes. My information is contradicting yours (see answer 1) so that means we both start with holes that must be explained. I have explained mine.. your only argument so far is: SEPH IS WRONG

[Shuffler]

This thread has been an interesting read....... hope it stays as such.