Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: opposum on October 01, 2010, 03:14:44 PM
-
The First World War will officially end on Sunday, 92 years after the guns fell silent, when Germany pays off the last chunk of reparations imposed on it by the Allies.
- so I was told by my history professor....
opposum
-
My history teacher said the same exact thing.
-
Serbia started it!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not!
Did too!
-
Better late than never.
:salute to all who were in that war, regardless of what uniform they wore.
-
Serbia started it!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not!
Did too!
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.
-
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.
Yet another example of how England ruined the modern world. :bolt:
-
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.
Ah. I would like a pint of what you've been drinking.
I mean...seriously....?
- oldman
-
I always thought that WWI ended on November 11 at 11 pm. at least thats what the history books say
-
I always thought that WWI ended on November 11 at 11 pm. at least thats what the history books say
It did, but i think there where some countries that were still at war with each other. Kind like the Korea War, still going on but no fighting.
-
I always thought that WWI ended on November 11 at 11 pm. at least thats what the history books say
That was just the armistice that ended the fighting (Hence November 11 originally being 'Armistice Day' in many Allied countries). The actual end of the war wasn't until the Treaty of Versailles was ratified on June 28, 1919 (recognized by the League of Nations in 1920).
Incidentally, the US never signed the Treaty. Wilson did as a framer, but it was never ratified by Congress (was rejected by vote on March 19, 1920). The US didn't officially declare the war over until the Knox-Porter resolution was signed into law by Warren G. Harding on July 21, 1921.
-
It did, but i think there where some countries that were still at war with each other. Kind like the Korea War, still going on but no fighting.
November 11 was the armistice, which actually had to be renewed every 30 days. The treaty of Versaille (28 June 1919) was the peace treaty that formally ended the war.
The Korean War only saw an armistice, never a peace treaty. So WWI did officially end, Korean War did not.
-
Is it bad that I know more about how WW2 than WW1?
All I know with WW1 in my head is that somewhere in what used to be yugoslavia started it, and then top-tiered euro countries such as russia, england, france and germany got into it; and after the war USA became like what China is today - a money lender with huge stock surplus money :headscratch:
-
Ah. I would like a pint of what you've been drinking.
I mean...seriously....?
- oldman
Here are a few exerts from a book review covering Splendid Isolation? Britain, the Balance of Power and the Origins of the First World War by John Charmley. John Charmley (born 1955) is a British diplomatic historian and a professor of modern history at the University of East Anglia, where he is head of the School of History. Charmley's historical work has proved to be controversial. The review in it's entirety can be found at http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/198
"In doing so, Charmley argues, they helped to bring about the decline of this country in the twentieth century. The decision for war in 1914 was, then, the most fatal one in a series of political blunders from the late 1870s to 1939."
...assessment of German diplomacy during the crisis, including also the discussions about the possibility of a preventive war against France. ~ He is right to point that 'the skies had not fallen in and civilization had not ended' following France's defeat in the war of 1870 in which Britain remained neutral (p.2). Perhaps the skies would not have fallen in 1914 either, had Britain remained aloof from the war on the continent.
I first became interested in this when my History Professor started talking about such. It is hard to change ones way of thinking after believe one way for so long, but even if you disagree, keep an open mind to other possible stances.
Remember, the winner writes history.
-
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.
-
Woodrow Wilson almost single handled caused the rise of Hitler and WWII with this Treaty of Versailles and his League of Nations.
You guys are beginning to scare me.
SEseph, I have not read Charmley's book. I did read Otte's review (thank you). I think you may overstate Charmley's thesis when you say:
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.
Charmley's contention seems to be that England should simply have stayed out of the war. No one can ever tell what result that might have had. But unless there has been some radical discovery, Austria-Hungary wasn't seeking "restitution" from Serbia, nor did the Serbs fire the first shot. France and Russia were both convinced that they were more than a match for Germany, whether England participated or not. To the extent that Charmley actually argues that Britain started the war, he follows in the footsteps of people like AJP Taylor, who tried to do the same thing for WWII, thereby losing what had been a reasonably good scholarly reputation.
R105, where in the world did you learn that the war simply would have ended with an armistice had the US not joined in? As it was the German 1918 offensives very nearly carried the day, and arguably would have done so had we not had our troops and, equally important, our supplies in some critical locations.
- oldman
-
It is starting to worry me Kermit hasn't popped up in this thread yet...Hang in there frog, we'll find where Betty keeps her "toys" and free you!
-
All this time i thought the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the first shot that started the war!
"While riding in the motorcade through the streets of Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were shot and killed by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian member of the Black Hand A Serbian terrorist group"
"The assassination provided Austria-Hungary with an excuse to take action against Serbia. During July 1914 the situation escalated, pulling in the major European powers via the complex alliance relationships each had struck up with one another. The result was world war!"
-
I've heard many people say before this guy that England should have stayed out of the war, as they could easily have done. Might the Central Powers have won? Maybe. Would history have been different? Probably. Would the rest of the 20th Century have been as bad? Who knows? It's another one of those 'what ifs' that's kind of fun but ultimately pointless to ponder. History is what it is.
-
All this time i thought the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the first shot that started the war!
How the war started (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA)
-
How the war started (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA)
:lol
-
How the war started (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA)
:rofl :aok
-
How the war started (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA)
So the poor old ostrich died for nothing! :lol
-
You guys are beginning to scare me.
SEseph, I have not read Charmley's book. I did read Otte's review (thank you). I think you may overstate Charmley's thesis when you say:
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.
Charmley's contention seems to be that England should simply have stayed out of the war. No one can ever tell what result that might have had. But unless there has been some radical discovery, Austria-Hungary wasn't seeking "restitution" from Serbia, nor did the Serbs fire the first shot. France and Russia were both convinced that they were more than a match for Germany, whether England participated or not. To the extent that Charmley actually argues that Britain started the war, he follows in the footsteps of people like AJP Taylor, who tried to do the same thing for WWII, thereby losing what had been a reasonably good scholarly reputation.
R105, where in the world did you learn that the war simply would have ended with an armistice had the US not joined in? As it was the German 1918 offensives very nearly carried the day, and arguably would have done so had we not had our troops and, equally important, our supplies in some critical locations.
- oldman
The Demands:
The Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia (English translation)
From World War I Document Archive
Jump to: navigation, search
WWI Document Archive > Official Papers > The Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia (English translation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 July, 1914:
The Austro-Hungarian Ultimatum to Serbia
English Translation
The German original of this ultimatum is also available.
The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Berchtold, to the Minister at Belgrade, von Giesl:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vienna, July 22, 1914
Your Excellency will present the following note to the Royal Government on the afternoon of Thursday, July 23: On the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Minister at the Court of Vienna made, in the name of his Government, the following declaration to the Imperial and Royal Government:
Serbia recognizes that her rights were not affected by the state of affairs created in Bosnia, and states that she will accordingly accommodate herself to the decisions to be reached by the Powers in connection with Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. Serbia, in accepting the advice of the Great Powers, binds herself to desist from the attitude of protest and opposition which she has assumed with regard to the annexation since October last, and she furthermore binds herself to alter the tendency of her present policy toward Austria-Hungary, and to live on the footing of friendly and neighborly relations with the latter in the future.
Now the history of the past few years, and particularly the painful events of the 28th of June, have proved the existence of a subversive movement in Serbia, whose object it is to separate certain portions of its territory from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This movement, which came into being under the very eyes of the Serbian Government, subsequently found expression outside of the territory of the Kingdom in acts of terrorism, in a number of attempts at assassination, and in murders.
Far from fulfilling the formal obligations contained in its declaration of the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Government has done nothing to suppress this movement. It has tolerated the criminal activities of the various unions and associations directed against the Monarchy, the unchecked utterances of the press, the glorification of the authors of assassinations, the participation of officers and officials in subversive intrigues; it has tolerated an unhealthy propaganda in its public instruction; and it has tolerated, finally, every manifestation which could betray the people of Serbia into hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions.
This toleration of which the Royal Serbian Government was guilty, was still in evidence at that moment when the events of the twenty-eighth of June exhibited to the whole world the dreadful consequences of such tolerance.
It is clear from the statements and confessions of the criminal authors of the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June, that the murder at Sarajevo was conceived at Belgrade, that the murderers received the weapons and the bombs with which they were equipped from Serbian officers and officials who belonged to the Narodna Odbrana, and, finally, that the dispatch of the criminals and of their weapons to Bosnia was arranged and effected under the conduct of Serbian frontier authorities.
The results brought out by the inquiry no longer permit the Imperial and Royal Government to maintain the attitude of patient tolerance which it has observed for years toward those agitations which center at Belgrade and are spread thence into the territories of the Monarchy. Instead, these results impose upon the Imperial and Royal Government the obligation to put an end to those intrigues, which constitute a standing menace to the peace of the Monarchy.
In order to attain this end, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself compelled to demand that the Serbian Government give official assurance that it will condemn the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Monarchy territories that belong to it; and that it will obligate itself to suppress with all the means at its command this criminal and terroristic propaganda. In order to give these assurances a character of solemnity, the Royal Serbian Government will publish on the first page of its official organ of July 26/13, the following declaration:
"The Royal Serbian Government condemns the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy territories that belong to it, and it most sincerely regrets the dreadful consequences of these criminal transactions.
"The Royal Serbian Government regrets that Serbian officers and officials should have taken part in the above-mentioned propaganda and thus have endangered the friendly and neighborly relations, to the cultivation of which the Royal Government had most solemnly pledged itself by its declarations of March 31, 1909.
"The Royal Government, which disapproves and repels every idea and every attempt to interfere in the destinies of the population of whatever portion of Austria-Hungary, regards it as its duty most expressly to call attention of the officers, officials, and the whole population of the kingdom to the fact that for the future it will proceed with the utmost rigor against any persons who shall become guilty of any such activities, activities to prevent and to suppress which, the Government will bend every effort."
This declaration shall be brought to the attention of the Royal army simultaneously by an order of the day from His Majesty the King, and by publication in the official organ of the army.
The Royal Serbian Government will furthermore pledge itself:
1. to suppress every publication which shall incite to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy, and the general tendency of which shall be directed against the territorial integrity of the latter;
2. to proceed at once to the dissolution of the Narodna Odbrana to confiscate all of its means of propaganda, and in the same manner to proceed against the other unions and associations in Serbia which occupy themselves with propaganda against Austria-Hungary; the Royal Government will take such measures as are necessary to make sure that the dissolved associations may not continue their activities under other names or in other forms;
3. to eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, everything, whether connected with the teaching corps or with the methods of teaching, that serves or may serve to nourish the propaganda against Austria-Hungary;
4. to remove from the military and administrative service in general all officers and officials who have been guilty of carrying on the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whose names the Imperial and Royal Government reserves the right to make known to the Royal Government when communicating the material evidence now in its possession;
5. to agree to the cooperation in Serbia of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the integrity of the Monarchy;
6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose;
7. to undertake with all haste the arrest of Major Voislav Tankosic and of one Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian official, who have been compromised by the results of the inquiry;
-
Cont.
8. by efficient measures to prevent the participation of Serbian authorities in the smuggling of weapons and explosives across the frontier; to dismiss from the service and to punish severely those members of the Frontier Service at Schabats and Losnitza who assisted the authors of the crime of Sarajevo to cross the frontier;
9. to make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad, who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June;
10. to inform the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised in the foregoing points.
The Imperial and Royal Government awaits the reply of the Royal Government by Saturday, the twenty-fifth instant, at 6 p.m., at the latest.
A reminder of the results of the investigation about Sarajevo, to the extent they relate to the functionaries named in points 7 and 8 [above], is appended to this note.«
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
«The crime investigation undertaken at court in Sarajevo against Gavrilo Princip and his comrades on account of the assassination committed on the 28th of June this year, along with the guilt of accomplices, has up until now led to the following conclusions:
1. The plan of murdering Archduke Franz Ferdinand during his stay in Sarajevo was concocted in Belgrade by Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Cabrinovic, a certain Milan Ciganovic, and Trifko Grabesch with the assistance of Major Voija Takosic.
2. The six bombs and four Browning pistols along with ammunition -- used as tools by the criminals -- were procured and given to Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in Belgrade by a certain Milan Ciganovic and Major Voija Takosic.
3. The bombs are hand grenades originating from the weapons depot of the Serbian army in Kragujevatz.
4. To guarantee the success of the assassination, Ciganovic instructed Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in the use of the grenades and gave lessons on shooting Browning pistols to Princip and Grabesch in a forest next to the shooting range at Topschider.
5. To make possible Princip, Cabrinovic und Grabesch's passage across the Bosnia-Herzegovina border and the smuggling of their weapons, an entire secretive transportation system was organized by Ciganovic. The entry of the criminals and their weapons into Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out by the main border officials of Shabatz (Rade Popovic) and Losnitza as well as by the customs agent Budivoj Grbic of Losnitza, with the complicity of several others.«
On the occasion of handing over this note, would Your Excellency please also add orally that -- in the event that no unconditionally positive answer of the Royal government might be received in the meantime -- after the course of the 48-hour deadline referred to in this note, as measured from the day and hour of your announcing it, you are commissioned to leave the I. and R. Embassy of Belgrade together with your personnel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Web address for this translation is... http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_to_Serbia_(English_translation)
Like I said, some were a bit... over the top.
-
I've heard many people say before this guy that England should have stayed out of the war, as they could easily have done. Might the Central Powers have won? Maybe. Would history have been different? Probably. Would the rest of the 20th Century have been as bad? Who knows? It's another one of those 'what ifs' that's kind of fun but ultimately pointless to ponder. History is what it is.
But to understand history is to maintain the importance of those lives lost. We must understand mistakes made, lest we should repeat them. I'm not playing "What If," I'm playing let's try to understand what went wrong that brought us into such a calamitous war. History would have changed, there is no doubt about such, but that doesn't mean we can't try to understand fully why it happened the way it did.
All this time i thought the assassination in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the first shot that started the war!
"While riding in the motorcade through the streets of Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were shot and killed by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian member of the Black Hand A Serbian terrorist group"
"The assassination provided Austria-Hungary with an excuse to take action against Serbia. During July 1914 the situation escalated, pulling in the major European powers via the complex alliance relationships each had struck up with one another. The result was world war!"
The excuse for action were the demands. The failure to follow the demands started the war.
Example: The American Civil War started with A: Fort Sumter, B: South Carolina's secession, C: John Brown's raid on Harper Ferry, D: Bloody Kansas or E: States Rights and a violation there of.
I have given 5 reasons for the beginning. Most people only know of, or believe one reason is sound. One must, however, look at them all, even when some were more than 10 years before the start of said war. (Remember, New England threatened the secede before the South did, and for similar reasons.) Many History professors do not like the way knowledge of the past has been skewed, but it can not be changed when dealing with a closed mind. (Slavery was only a secondary issue behind the issue of States Rights)
The point is that just because one is taught one thing, does not mean it is complete, or even right.
-
It did, but i think there where some countries that were still at war with each other. Kind like the Korea War, still going on but no fighting.
England and Germany were still fireing artilery till 11:00 on Nov 11
-
Like I said, some were a bit... over the top.
...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
-
Serbia fired the first shot, but Britian condoned the shot and encouraged it.
cool, so Britain effectively mugged Germany. :old:
-
Thank you, Treize69.
But history IS WHAT IT WAS.
I'm not arguing. I think your post is beautiful.
That America got involved is the stupidest Woodrow thing ever.
And, let's face it: had America kept it's pants on, there'd be no Hitler and WWII.
-
Thank you, Treize69.
But history IS WHAT IT WAS.
I'm not arguing. I think your post is beautiful.
That America got involved is the stupidest Woodrow thing ever.
And, let's face it: had America kept it's pants on, there'd be no Hitler and WWII.
actually no matter how WWI ended a second engagement was guaranteed.
who ever won was not strong enough to maintain a prolonged dominance in peace over all of Europe, to vast and too populated.
additionally who ever lost the first time was bound by the rapidly changing technologies to try their luck again. hey if at first you don't succeed....well you get it.
finally Russia was just becoming an aspiring communist nation with men and materials that far exceeded anything that any one dominant European country could contain, especially if the dominant European country had to face an entire hostel Europe set on the ruling countries down fall.
had germany won then the tragedy of WWII would have happened anyways.
just be thankful that it was leaders like hitler that prewar drove the inventors of atomic power and many other tecnologies out of Europe. other wise all of the same people who rose to power would have anyways, (except maybe hitler) as most of them were of royal class thus entitled to power by right of birth, but then they would have been ahead of the world in many tecnologies but especially in the ultimate technology, atomic bombs.
-
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.
-
...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. :salute
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :salute
well thought out and very well put! i concur, :salute
-
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
-
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.
-
This thread is the best read in the last six months. :salute
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
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.
-
I never said "my stance", so how am I a hypocrite because your theory has too many holes?
-
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
-
This thread has been an interesting read....... hope it stays as such. :D
-
:devil
-
:devil
You CAD you :rofl
-
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.
So... you can spell inconsequential, but repeatedly spell Britain, 'Britian' apart from when you copy/paste from elsewhere... :noid
I don't mean to be an arse, I just have a pet hate for it.
-
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.
You do know that the US was not part of the League of Nations, correct? You also know that Germany pretty much forced the hand of the US to enter the war when Germany tried to enlist Mexico to declare war on the US and invade, correct? You also know that out of the 3 major Allied powers, the US actually was the one (and to a certain extent Britain) that took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations while France wanted her pound of flesh from Germany. You also know that Wilson's "14 Points" formed the basis for the terms of Germany's surrender as negotiated at the Paris Peace Conference and that the Treaty of Versaille had little to do with the "14 Points" that the treaty was never ratified by the US Senate, correct?
ack-ack
-
So... you can spell inconsequential, but repeatedly spell Britain, 'Britian' apart from when you copy/paste from elsewhere... :noid
I don't mean to be an arse, I just have a pet hate for it.
I also reverse the i and e in their. I have no idea how to spell half the words I know. That is why god created Spell Check :D But how and why it misspelled or just didn't catch it.... is beyond me. :headscratch:
-
The First World War will officially end on Sunday, 92 years after the guns fell silent, when Germany pays off the last chunk of reparations imposed on it by the Allies.
- so I was told by my history professor....
opposum
Actually the original OP is correct. The final installment (100 Million) will be paid October 6, 2010. The rise of Hitler and the main contribution to WWII was in fact the Treaty of Versailles, ratified on June 28, 1919 and the Great Depression of 1929 – 1939 cause the populist movement of the Socialist Party in Germany and placed Hitler in a position of great power. The reparation payments were suspended by Germany from 1921 through the end of WWII and were re-imposed as part of the Marshal plan. The cause of the delay was not because of a 92 year agreement, but by agreement Germany did not have to make payments until Germany was once again unified as one nation.
You can thank Ronald Reagan.
-
Traveler, you seem knowledgeable on this.. how.. why would anyone let Germany stop the payments in 1921? As for the rest of the halts in payments, very insightful. :aok
-
You do know that the US was not part of the League of Nations, correct? You also know that Germany pretty much forced the hand of the US to enter the war when Germany tried to enlist Mexico to declare war on the US and invade, correct? You also know that out of the 3 major Allied powers, the US actually was the one (and to a certain extent Britain) that took a more conciliatory view toward the issue of German reparations while France wanted her pound of flesh from Germany. You also know that Wilson's "14 Points" formed the basis for the terms of Germany's surrender as negotiated at the Paris Peace Conference and that the Treaty of Versaille had little to do with the "14 Points" that the treaty was never ratified by the US Senate, correct?
ack-ack
Don't give in, he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.
-
The US did not sign with the league of nations but Wilson signed it himself. As for the Zimmerman letter to Mexico it in all likely hood was a fraud. British intelligence was behind it to get America into the war Churchill said as much in the 50s. Wilson wanted in it anyway. If you want to learn about Woodrow Wilson the real Wilson and not what is written by the far left progressives. I will post some books later. Germany and the Nazi's in the 1920s and 30s used the Wilson's administration as a model for propaganda as did Russia. Lucky for America Wilson died before he could cause more damage.
-
Traveler, you seem knowledgeable on this.. how.. why would anyone let Germany stop the payments in 1921? As for the rest of the halts in payments, very insightful. :aok
simple, Germany had no economy, no money, You can't get what isn't there. Because of the Treaty of Versailles and it's terms, Germany found it impossible to get back on it's feet. Because of the terms of the treaty Germany had no growing industry base. While other nations moved ahead Germany was left behind and was faced with making huges payments.
-
simple, Germany had no economy, no money, You can't get what isn't there. Because of the Treaty of Versailles and it's terms, Germany found it impossible to get back on it's feet. Because of the terms of the treaty Germany had no growing industry base. While other nations moved ahead Germany was left behind and was faced with making huges payments.
I think you misunderstood what I wanted. You said Germany suspended them in 1921. That's like signing a cease fire and continuing the fight after a few years and the other side lets you without protest (Hello N. Korea). You also said it lasted through the end of WWII meaning that as the rest of Europe watched her grow in Military power, they ignored the fact that she owed the huge restitution payments. If this is the case, then one could also argue, while devastating, the treaty of Versailles apparently had no teeth, so wasn't as significant in the starting of WWII as thought.. If 2 years after it's inception, it couldn't control a nation devastated by war, what makes anyone think it could restrain Germany for any length of time?
I might be missing something, but these were the questions in my head and the reasoning behind them in short.
-
simple, Germany had no economy, no money, You can't get what isn't there. Because of the Treaty of Versailles and it's terms, Germany found it impossible to get back on it's feet. Because of the terms of the treaty Germany had no growing industry base. While other nations moved ahead Germany was left behind and was faced with making huges payments.
QFT. This is why. No "theories" needed.
-
Correlation =/= causation. Any history prof worth a damn should be the first to teach this.
It's the economy, stupid. :aok (That's a quote, not a personal attack)
-
In regards to Britain losing all it's colonies is not true, I have them in a box under my bed :old:
Where's our tea? :joystick:
-
simple, Germany had no economy, no money, You can't get what isn't there. Because of the Treaty of Versailles and it's terms, Germany found it impossible to get back on it's feet. Because of the terms of the treaty Germany had no growing industry base. While other nations moved ahead Germany was left behind and was faced with making huges payments.
Add to that the Great Depression, It was a world wide event. Every nation was faced with mass unemployment. Hitler’s rise to power and the many out right lies that he made in the name of peace.
The Treaty of Versailles was in effect a punishment preventing many German soldiers from finding jobs, where as the Marshal Plan put Germany back to work. It established an post war economy that provided the foundation for posterity. It was never expected that Germany would remain divided for so long. The Marshal Plan envisioned a unified Germany before 1950. The USSR changed all that. Until Germany was unified, it was not required to pay anything. “Tear down this wall” was the start. The plan called for the payments for WWI and WWII. That last payment was made this week.
-
I thought the Anglo Saxon countries adopted a moneytary policy whereby they encouraged deregulated investment and the expense of manufacturing, service sector employment via capital was created.
Germany has retained much of it's heavy and light manufacturing base and resisted any attempts of intervention in regards to its economic policy.
Spain has complained to the IMF that their main economic problems are based on Germanies reluctance to fully open it's internal markets.
The US over the next 30 years will reconsolidate it's position on the world economic stage.
The economic problems occurring at present are a result of collapse of investment capital ie morgage business.
I bought some CH pedals they were expensive and worth every penny,how do I get a green card?
-
It's all my fault :devil
_____________________________ ________________________
There can only be one
-
QFT. This is why. No "theories" needed.
Who asked for a theory? I wanted to know how/why a country without money to pay back war debts was allowed to have the monies to build such an advanced force. I mean even when territories were being used in appeasement, it was because the other countries feared and/or wanted peace at all costs. They could only fear them if they had monies to build something to fear, meaning either the allied parties were not paying attention for years upon years, or they didn't really care to enforce the treaty. Maybe they didn't have money for a good while, but somewhere they did get the monies. Like you taking out a mortgage , then never paying on it citing financial difficulties, spend the money and drive up to argue with the bank in a Bugatti Veyron that you don't have the money to pay a $6,000 a month mortgage. Is the bank really that naive? I never doubted Traveler, I just don't understand why no one enforced the treaty when opportunities were there.
Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow.
Calvin Coolidge
My theory earlier was for WWI not WWII
-
Green card? No? anyone?
-
The US did not sign with the league of nations but Wilson signed it himself. As for the Zimmerman letter to Mexico it in all likely hood was a fraud. British intelligence was behind it to get America into the war Churchill said as much in the 50s. Wilson wanted in it anyway. If you want to learn about Woodrow Wilson the real Wilson and not what is written by the far left progressives. I will post some books later. Germany and the Nazi's in the 1920s and 30s used the Wilson's administration as a model for propaganda as did Russia. Lucky for America Wilson died before he could cause more damage.
The Zimmerman Papars were not a fraud, that has been proven. I would like to see your source that proves contrary. As for the League of Nations, doesn't matter if the President signed an intent, but the fact remains that the US Senate never ratified both the League of Nations nor the Treaty of Versailles. It is also an undisputable fact that the US was by far very conciliatory towards Germany about reparations.
By all means though, continue with your revisionism as it's very entertaining.
ack-ack
-
Who asked for a theory? I wanted to know how/why a country without money to pay back war debts was allowed to have the monies to build such an advanced force. I mean even when territories were being used in appeasement, it was because the other countries feared and/or wanted peace at all costs. They could only fear them if they had monies to build something to fear, meaning either the allied parties were not paying attention for years upon years, or they didn't really care to enforce the treaty. Maybe they didn't have money for a good while, but somewhere they did get the monies. Like you taking out a mortgage , then never paying on it citing financial difficulties, spend the money and drive up to argue with the bank in a Bugatti Veyron that you don't have the money to pay a $6,000 a month mortgage. Is the bank really that naive? I never doubted Traveler, I just don't understand why no one enforced the treaty when opportunities were there.
Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow.
Calvin Coolidge
My theory earlier was for WWI not WWII
I think you have to consider all the major events that occurred at the time. Germany in a war that left the country bankrupted and major industry destroyed . A treaty that prohibited re-growth of that industry, massive unemployed and this years before the great depression was to hit. Once Hitler was in a position of power Germany quickly shredded the treaty. The youth programs involved with gliders. One in ten teens could fly a glider in Germany in 1932. The Germen version of the BoyScouts was designed along a military command structure. Once the vail was removed and Germany openly built a military power base, no one want war. Like it or not, Hitler took a defeated , bankrupted nation, with no economy, massive unemployment and no hope and turned it into a major world power by 1933 they were center stage with the 1933 Olympics. Hitler was ruthless, brutal and cruel and from my reading totally insane.
For whatever reason the world chose to sit back and watch. The history of the German American Bund in the United States is very interesting reading. The US was considered an isolationists country and wanted no part of a war. Perhaps that’s why many speculate that Roosevelt’s Whitehouse and command knew of the pending attack at Pearl Harbor and withheld warnings because they needed a sneak attack from an evil enemy to get a clear majority in Congress to enter into WWII. Just think how everyone felt here on the afternoon of 9/11. The US declared war on Japan, Germany Declarers war on the US. Game on. Had the fleet been warned at Pearl and at sea instead of in port. The result would have been the same. The fleet sunk in deep water, and many more men dead. At least in the harbor they just had to swim ashore, the the bulk of the fleet was re-floated within months.
-
Who asked for a theory? I wanted to know how/why a country without money to pay back war debts was allowed to have the monies to build such an advanced force. I mean even when territories were being used in appeasement, it was because the other countries feared and/or wanted peace at all costs. They could only fear them if they had monies to build something to fear, meaning either the allied parties were not paying attention for years upon years, or they didn't really care to enforce the treaty. Maybe they didn't have money for a good while, but somewhere they did get the monies. Like you taking out a mortgage , then never paying on it citing financial difficulties, spend the money and drive up to argue with the bank in a Bugatti Veyron that you don't have the money to pay a $6,000 a month mortgage. Is the bank really that naive? I never doubted Traveler, I just don't understand why no one enforced the treaty when opportunities were there.
Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow.
Calvin Coolidge
My theory earlier was for WWI not WWII
You are claiming the "theory" is what transpired and that is my only hangup with that. The reason the French spread their payments out like the Germans was that if you demand the "lump sum", the World Economy collapses. It isn't a question of people being "naive", there was common sense in the Economic status of Germany. How do you make an already near bankrupt country pay reparations?
Fast Forward to 1929 and not just the US was affected by the Stock Market crash. The ripple effect reached across the Globe. BTW, the US was giving loans to the Weimar Republic until 1932.
What hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the Lausanne Conference (sp?) of 1932 stipulated that the "reparations be suspended". By that time it was clear that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. The U.S. had agreed to cycle back back to the Young Plan and modified it to include:
- to not pressure Germany for immediate payments.
- to reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million.
- to informally agree among the delegates that these provisions would be ineffective unless the US government agreed to the cancellation of war debts owed by the Allied governments.
As to your earlier question of "why Germany was allowed to take so long to repay". I referred to my 300 level World History notebook.
After Germany’s surrender in World War II, an international conference decided that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified. West Germany paid off the principal by 1980. In 1995 after reunification, the new German government announced it would resume payments of the interest to compensate for "East German debts".
Again, my only hangup has been the "theory", nothing else.
-
The US did not sign with the league of nations but Wilson signed it himself. As for the Zimmerman letter to Mexico it in all likely hood was a fraud. British intelligence was behind it to get America into the war Churchill said as much in the 50s. Wilson wanted in it anyway. If you want to learn about Woodrow Wilson the real Wilson and not what is written by the far left progressives. I will post some books later. Germany and the Nazi's in the 1920s and 30s used the Wilson's administration as a model for propaganda as did Russia. Lucky for America Wilson died before he could cause more damage.
I'm guessing you were taught this by a certain person with a t.v. show involving a slew of chalkboards?
Also, sure you can pull out books proving yourself right, but I can pull out books that prove the holocaust is a myth and that 9/11 was a scheme started by the U.S. govt. :noid
Please toss me the ISBN's of your sources, because I'd very much like to go through it and instead of playing wheres waldo, I'll be playing where's the BS.
and may be a bit early, but IN.
-
Well along with learning there is more to the story of WWI than an assasination! I also learned that i will never get into a battle of words with SEseph! You sir (even if you c/p) have had some of the most well put together post ive read in a forum!
Please continue!
-
Read the following books
1. Woodrow Wilson by Ronald Pestritto
2. What really caused WWI. Can't remember the writer
3.Wilson's war. by Jim Power
The Zimmerman letter was decoded by British intelligent officer Admiral William R Hall and given to the foreign minister Arthur J. Balfour. He in turn gave it to the US Ambassador. The code breaking used was faulty by admission of the British Load of the Admiralty Winston Churchill 30 yrs later. Zimmerman
did admit he sent the telegram but not that Germany really wanted or expected Mexico to attack the US. History books from the local high school do not tell the total story.
-
did US attack Mexico in the phillipines.?
Got a book American diplomacy by Ambassador Harrimann
-
Remember the very people who wrote the history books are the same bunch that got us in WWI to start with. The winners write history. If you want to see where some of this got started well before Wilson then read.
Bully Boy. by Jim Powell
-
You are claiming the "theory" is what transpired and that is my only hangup with that. The reason the French spread their payments out like the Germans was that if you demand the "lump sum", the World Economy collapses. It isn't a question of people being "naive", there was common sense in the Economic status of Germany. How do you make an already near bankrupt country pay reparations?
Fast Forward to 1929 and not just the US was affected by the Stock Market crash. The ripple effect reached across the Globe. BTW, the US was giving loans to the Weimar Republic until 1932.
What hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the Lausanne Conference (sp?) of 1932 stipulated that the "reparations be suspended". By that time it was clear that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. The U.S. had agreed to cycle back back to the Young Plan and modified it to include:
- to not pressure Germany for immediate payments.
- to reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million.
- to informally agree among the delegates that these provisions would be ineffective unless the US government agreed to the cancellation of war debts owed by the Allied governments.
As to your earlier question of "why Germany was allowed to take so long to repay". I referred to my 300 level World History notebook.
After Germany’s surrender in World War II, an international conference decided that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified. West Germany paid off the principal by 1980. In 1995 after reunification, the new German government announced it would resume payments of the interest to compensate for "East German debts".
Again, my only hangup has been the "theory", nothing else.
All due respect, your notes and/or book are/is of no help to you if you are not answering the question that was asked. I didn't care about post WWII. I wanted to know why Germany was allowed to build her forces up before WWII when she was suppose to be making restitution payments. How much do you think all of those Unterseeboots or both the Bismark and Tirpitz cost? When Spain's civil war (July17th, 1936 – April 1st, 1939) erupted, Germany, Italy and Portugal were requested to aid the Nationalists. Germany used the opportunity to cut her teeth on her new military, which was in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. Remember these provisions?
Part V of the treaty begins with the preamble, "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."
German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.
Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.
German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included.
The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.
Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited.
Blockades on ships are prohibited.
Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles).
In reading such, one wonders... how does a country not allowed to have armed vehicles cut their airforce's teeth in battle? Uh oh, seems they had extra money. Just saying. Which is also why I asked Traveler about it. I have a hard time accepting that the allies were so eager to fight the war, France in particular, then get back their territories (see France again) only to wuss out when the guy who owes them money is hiding behind: "I'm broke, and if you don't believe me, just don't look at Spain when you investigate my claim." I haven't touched 1940 yet, let alone 1947, 1950 etc etc..
Secondly, why on earth would you put in a stipulation of payment when you are uncertain of the possible fulfillment of said stipulation? (this is in rebuke to your statement) What if Germany had NEVER reunified? If I were West Germany and East Germany, I'd never agree to new terms as the only way I have to pay you back currently is if I fulfill condition (A)... so I'll make condition (A) unobtainable. Are we going to go to war if they refuse to pay? We've seen the answer to that. I'd be safe in betting no. A contract can not be changed unless all parties agree and when Germany did reunite, we believed ourselves above such a global war. What if they had still said no? I mean how many years without full payments went by? I wish MY creditors were that forgiving.
It seems as if the world is hesitant to punish unless it's out of perportion. Germany was put as totally at fault for WWI, yet we've sat here talking about the idea of Serbia starting it, or Austria-Hungary, or even Britain. Germany was doing as her treaty required, as was France, Italy, Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, Chine etc etc. So Germany is at fault for being an faithful participant in what all others hold themselves to be, not just as faithful, but also above everyone else. Remember in 1939 when this tiny country west of Germany helped her invade? I think it was called the USSR... but it was so small, who would care. Then they got back stabbed and switched sides. Does that nullify any guilt they had for assisting in the start of the war? What about the fact Russia was intent on helping Germany even further until Operation Barbarossa halted such designs.
If you look at history, you must accept it's inconsistencies, but also one must understand WHY they even exist in the first place. I do not disagree with blatant facts, but this one isn't straight forward. It leaves many open questions as to why certain people's were punished while others who had just as much, or more, guilt are allowed to avoid persecution.
I'm sure I missed something, or left an open statement somewhere, but I'm in a hurry this morning, sorry.
Remember the very people who wrote the history books are the same bunch that got us in WWI to start with. The winners write history. If you want to see where some of this got started well before Wilson then read.
Bully Boy. by Jim Powell
So you are now of the opinion that events were already heading in the favor or World War before Wilson... How then is it's Wilson's fault? How is any one man at fault for such world events? You might site Hitler, but he was no alone. His party, his people, Russia, those who ignored him; they are ALL at fault for allowing him to be there. Our world is not cloistered, nor has it been for many a century. World events transpire as a result of many actions. Wilson might have done something differently, Britian might have. Serbia might have. The idea is to understand WHERE the errors lay, not who is easiest to blame. A child will lie, but that doesn't mean just because you don't understand that they are lying, yet many parent's assume so. I myself am guilty of such my with my niece. It was easy, she was 3. I'm an adult, so I know better and that means she has to be wrong... Yet I was. History is the same. Remember in 1800? evolution was BAD, it was WRONG, it was Heresy. Today anything but is considered uneducated. A man in Iran say the holocaust didn't happen, does that make it so? We must use reason and logic to interpret events.
Quotes and books are fine, so long as you can logically string your argument up so when someone tugs on it it doesn't come crashing down. As I said in a previous answer, Wilson was elected in after a vast majority of the events needed for World War were already in place. Let's say he wanted war... so did France and Austria-Hungary. Which is right? Is France right because we won the war with her? Or is she right solely because she won... If you say she was wrong, then obviously we need to look at who is at fault for WWII. If she was right, why wasn't Austria-Hungary? Double standards are no good in arguments because they can be used to smack your side down before it even starts...
Britain is no in the spell check lol I might have misspelled it again, I found one error already but Spell check never found it... hmmm
-
Nice argument SEseph!!!!!!!! very well written! :salute
but your wrong just because my momma told me she saw it on history channel!!!! :neener: :neener:
disclaimer: just a joke everyone, none take it personally! :D
:bolt:
-
so first world has ended then? :old:
-
I wanted to know why Germany was allowed to build her forces up before WWII when she was suppose to be making restitution payments. How much do you think all of those Unterseeboots or both the Bismark and Tirpitz cost? When Spain's civil war (July17th, 1936 – April 1st, 1939) erupted, Germany, Italy and Portugal were requested to aid the Nationalists. Germany used the opportunity to cut her teeth on her new military, which was in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. Remember these provisions?
Part V of the treaty begins with the preamble, "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."
German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.
Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.
German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men, 6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each). No submarines are to be included.
The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.
Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited.
Blockades on ships are prohibited.
Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles).
In reading such, one wonders... how does a country not allowed to have armed vehicles cut their airforce's teeth in battle? Uh oh, seems they had extra money. Just saying. Which is also why I asked Traveler about it. I have a hard time accepting that the allies were so eager to fight the war, France in particular, then get back their territories (see France again) only to wuss out when the guy who owes them money is hiding behind: "I'm broke, and if you don't believe me, just don't look at Spain when you investigate my claim." I haven't touched 1940 yet, let alone 1947, 1950 etc etc..
Secondly, why on earth would you put in a stipulation of payment when you are uncertain of the possible fulfillment of said stipulation? (this is in rebuke to your statement) What if Germany had NEVER reunified? If I were West Germany and East Germany, I'd never agree to new terms as the only way I have to pay you back currently is if I fulfill condition (A)... so I'll make condition (A) unobtainable. Are we going to go to war if they refuse to pay? We've seen the answer to that. I'd be safe in betting no. A contract can not be changed unless all parties agree and when Germany did reunite, we believed ourselves above such a global war. What if they had still said no? I mean how many years without full payments went by? I wish MY creditors were that forgiving.
It seems as if the world is hesitant to punish unless it's out of perportion. Germany was put as totally at fault for WWI, yet we've sat here talking about the idea of Serbia starting it, or Austria-Hungary, or even Britain. Germany was doing as her treaty required, as was France, Italy, Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, Chine etc etc. So Germany is at fault for being an faithful participant in what all others hold themselves to be, not just as faithful, but also above everyone else. Remember in 1939 when this tiny country west of Germany helped her invade? I think it was called the USSR... but it was so small, who would care. Then they got back stabbed and switched sides. Does that nullify any guilt they had for assisting in the start of the war? What about the fact Russia was intent on helping Germany even further until Operation Barbarossa halted such designs.
If you look at history, you must accept it's inconsistencies, but also one must understand WHY they even exist in the first place. I do not disagree with blatant facts, but this one isn't straight forward. It leaves many open questions as to why certain people's were punished while others who had just as much, or more, guilt are allowed to avoid persecution.
I'm sure I missed something, or left an open statement somewhere, but I'm in a hurry this morning, sorry.
So you are now of the opinion that events were already heading in the favor or World War before Wilson... How then is it's Wilson's fault? How is any one man at fault for such world events? You might site Hitler, but he was no alone. His party, his people, Russia, those who ignored him; they are ALL at fault for allowing him to be there. Our world is not cloistered, nor has it been for many a century. World events transpire as a result of many actions. Wilson might have done something differently, Britian might have. Serbia might have. The idea is to understand WHERE the errors lay, not who is easiest to blame. A child will lie, but that doesn't mean just because you don't understand that they are lying, yet many parent's assume so. I myself am guilty of such my with my niece. It was easy, she was 3. I'm an adult, so I know better and that means she has to be wrong... Yet I was. History is the same. Remember in 1800? evolution was BAD, it was WRONG, it was Heresy. Today anything but is considered uneducated. A man in Iran say the holocaust didn't happen, does that make it so? We must use reason and logic to interpret events.
Quotes and books are fine, so long as you can logically string your argument up so when someone tugs on it it doesn't come crashing down. As I said in a previous answer, Wilson was elected in after a vast majority of the events needed for World War were already in place. Let's say he wanted war... so did France and Austria-Hungary. Which is right? Is France right because we won the war with her? Or is she right solely because she won... If you say she was wrong, then obviously we need to look at who is at fault for WWII. If she was right, why wasn't Austria-Hungary? Double standards are no good in arguments because they can be used to smack your side down before it even starts...
Britain is no in the spell check lol I might have misspelled it again, I found one error already but Spell check never found it... hmmm
First off sport, I quoted nothing. You continue to spell Britain incorrectly, but attempt to correct others in different areas, there's a double standard.
As for "Why they were allowed to build?" Simple, they had a genius amongst them. His name was Erhard Milch. I suggest you read "The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe" written by him. Prior to WWII he was the Head of Lufthansa. He was a master at all things logistical. The Germans played shell game with their built weapons and the allies were not able to keep tabs on everything. Before you know it, they've amassed a lot of weaponry from Uboats, BB's, airplanes, tanks and small arms.
They built all of this stuff while most of the country was near poverty. Hitler chose the Military over the civilians, because of illusions of grandeur. As for your continued "What If's?", they are unrealistic and have no bearing as Germany has paid off the debt. It is for naught.
-
so first world has ended then? :old:
Only if the check clears
-
:rofl :rofl
-
This might be interesting read if the concept of "how they built their armed forces" is changed to "why they built it": http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Victory-America-World-War/dp/0465024696/ref=pd_cp_b_2
-C+
-
Just waded through this thread and it seems like folks are over complicating things a bit.
As for SEseph's question about why was Germany allowed to rebuild etc. I think it comes down to the rest of the world not having the stomach to do anything about it. I remember as a little kid walking into the little church in small town South Dakota where my folks grew up. Population under 100. On the wall was the list of WW1 dead from that town and it was a dozen guys. Now that's small town US. We hadn't even been in WW1 that long. Think of those that bore the brunt of the fighting from 1914-18 and I'd imagine the numbers would be staggering for those little towns in those countries. With that war still fresh in the minds of everyone, why would they believe that Hitler would be wanting to fight it again. Throw in the depression and saving the world goes down the list somewhere below food and shelter for one's family.
-
good now they can start paying back WW2 war reparations! No wonder the germans are a cranky bunch!
-
Do you mind my dog is German!
-
is he cranky?
-
actually he is :joystick:
You can have a argument with wife and he will just lie there, drop a spoon and he's attacking the door
He is a very large German Shepard
-
First off sport, I quoted nothing. You continue to spell Britain incorrectly, but attempt to correct others in different areas, there's a double standard.
As for "Why they were allowed to build?" Simple, they had a genius amongst them. His name was Erhard Milch. I suggest you read "The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe" written by him. Prior to WWII he was the Head of Lufthansa. He was a master at all things logistical. The Germans played shell game with their built weapons and the allies were not able to keep tabs on everything. Before you know it, they've amassed a lot of weaponry from Uboats, BB's, airplanes, tanks and small arms.
They built all of this stuff while most of the country was near poverty. Hitler chose the Military over the civilians, because of illusions of grandeur. As for your continued "What If's?", they are unrealistic and have no bearing as Germany has paid off the debt. It is for naught.
I'm not even going to start with personal attacks like my spelling. I've covered that already this thread. They are just childish. The quote was because of your citing your Book. I assumed it was taken from such, if not, do these small insignificant nuances really destroy an argument?
I asked the question, because I needed clarification in my mind. Sometimes just having someone else word it helps. I learned some new things from it, I confirmed some old. From you though, I have received answers that do with the future of where my questions lay. This time you point to chiefly one man yet that also is false. In order for him to have been in a position to do anything he did, other events would have been required; from failure of intelligence, to the want of blissful self induced ignorance or just the folly of ignoring history's 'what ifs.' Just because a debt was repaid, doesn't mean the event goes away from history. You might find that in thae level 300 book too.
Each event presents with it lessons, but in order to learn some of these, you must ask questions of the event. Hypothetical 'What ifs' are how we sometimes obtain these answers. We rely on the hypothetical each and every day. Our greatest inventors played the 'what if' game. The Manhattan project was 100% theory until it was at an end. It was a HUGE 'what if.' 'What ifs' do not harm, they elicit discussion and intellectual banter. But in order to make the discussion of any value, you must be open to thinking about the other side. I fully understand what we were taught, but just because it is what we currently believe, doesn't necessarily make it right. Who grew up with 8 planets here? No one, we grew up with 9. Were we wrong or did the information we had, and the way we define our world change? I am opening the possibility there are 8 planets instead of 9. Maybe I am wrong... but maybe you are as well.
As for SEseph's question about why was Germany allowed to rebuild etc. I think it comes down to the rest of the world not having the stomach to do anything about it.
Thanks Guppy, well put
In WWI, everyone had something to gain from the war or were drug in by treaty. Britain sided with the easiest of the choices because even a neutral nation sometimes is making a choice in her silence.
This is the reason Hitler was able to do what he did. This time it didn't benefit the high and mighty nations to enforce a treaty and could hurt them should they step up. Maybe we should have played a 'What If' game then...
Anyway, back to the initial reason I said anything in this forum. Britain started WWI by her inaction and a little cowardice by her leadership. The nations didn't have the sense of duty to enforce something they gained little to nothing from should they enforce it, which opened the way for Hitler to step right in. My view of events gives the same wars, the same people, the same events. What my view gives that the commonly accepted view does not is a new way of interpreting such events.
-
Each event presents with it lessons, but in order to learn some of these, you must ask questions of the event. Hypothetical 'What ifs' are how we sometimes obtain these answers.
...
Maybe we should have played a 'What If' game then...
A couple of things about 'What ifs.'
The farther back in time one goes, the harder is is to say how subsequent events would have unfolded. The effect of a different outcome of WW1, for example, could have radically altered or prevented WW2.
A significant change in a detail might only slightly change the course of history. Had Moscow fallen in 1941, Germany probably would still have lost the war. Hmm. I am disagreeing with myself. Let's see, Moscow falls, Germany gets nuked into the stone age, the Cold War doesn't happen ... maybe a huge change in history.
'What if' can be fun, but it is not an exact science.
Britain started WWI by her inaction and a little cowardice by her leadership.
With regards to the opinion that Britain caused WW1, it is an over simplification. The causes of WW1 are many. Imperialism and industrialization are major factors. If Britain stepped in and somehow calmed Austria-Hungary in 1914, competition for colonies and resources would likely have provided another flashpoint. Impossible to say for sure. I will concede that Britain (and even Woodrow) had roles in the origins of the Great War, but they were not the only causes.
-
I always thought that WWI ended on November 11 at 11 pm. at least thats what the history books say
It isn't the anniversary of the agreements that ended the fighting, but rather the complete closure of the war through payment of reperations of the defeated countries to the victors.
-
I'm amazed by this thread.
When it came up, I felt like adding something to the discussion, but then refrained from it. Because only a few months ago, I was ruled #14 and a thread was locked when I answered a purely historical question for the very era because
Yes Virginia, even historical discussions of politics is not allowed.
And now a similar thread is not only allowed, but even moved to the appropriate forum?
:headscratch:
-
I'm amazed by this thread.
When it came up, I felt like adding something to the discussion, but then refrained from it. Because only a few months ago, I was ruled #14 and a thread was locked when I answered a purely historical question for the very era because
And now a similar thread is not only allowed, but even moved to the appropriate forum?
:headscratch:
i think it all depends on who's opinion you were disagreeing with and how much they complained to Skuzzy about how intelligent your post was and they felt it was unfair that you be allowed to post opinions that they werent smart enough to argue against.
post away lusche, i for one generally enjoy reading your thoughts on most subjects. even if i dont always agree with you, i usually understand your trail of logic and find your words interesting intelligent and entertaining.
:salute
-
i think it all depends on who's opinion you were disagreeing with and how much they complained to Skuzzy about how intelligent your post was and they felt it was unfair that you be allowed to post opinions that they werent smart enough to argue against.
No disagreement, no argument at all. No reference to modern politics, no hidden agenda stuff or trolling. Just two posts: A purely historical question, a short and factual answer and *boom* #14 and thread locked after just that two posts with the reason given above.
Of course since then I steered clear of anything having to do with history. And now a thread purely with a discussion about historical politics. Just makes me wonder.
-
well any time you have something to say you are more than welcome to drop me a PM with it. as i said before i enjoy reading your thoughts.
course don't be surprised if you drop me a note with some really good thoughts in it and i cant help myself cause I'm not as smart so i plagiarize the poop out of you!!!
-
Funny thing about WW1 was when America entered they where still paying a royalty on their rifles to the Germans since an American Manufacturer was PROVEN to have stole ideas from the German Kar-90 rifle i believe thats the model.
So Americans where Killing Germans with German Rifles :lol :rofl
-
I thought a large proportion of Yanks were of German stock :old:
-
great now they can start payin for the second one :D
-
A couple of things about 'What ifs.'
The farther back in time one goes, the harder is is to say how subsequent events would have unfolded. The effect of a different outcome of WW1, for example, could have radically altered or prevented WW2.
True, fully agree. So we better fight about it today because tomorrow might be too late! :D
A significant change in a detail might only slightly change the course of history. Had Moscow fallen in 1941, Germany probably would still have lost the war. Hmm. I am disagreeing with myself. Let's see, Moscow falls, Germany gets nuked into the stone age, the Cold War doesn't happen ... maybe a huge change in history.
True. Germany did not have the population to hold all of Russia and her other conquests at the time. That has been verrified. (I have no source, I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago, but can't remember which).
'What if' can be fun, but it is not an exact science.
A group of historians are studying such. It is called Hypothetical History. A quote from the early days of this science can be found in the journal The Economic History Review under the article Hypothetical History by J.D. Gould. It states, "...recently some historians have urged that it is sometimes possible and convenient, or even necessary, to make counterfactual assumptions as a starting point for argument designed to assess the effect of historical events or processes." And here everyone thought I just liked playing "What if." :D
With regards to the opinion that Britain caused WW1, it is an over simplification. The causes of WW1 are many. Imperialism and industrialization are major factors. If Britain stepped in and somehow calmed Austria-Hungary in 1914, competition for colonies and resources would likely have provided another flashpoint. Impossible to say for sure. I will concede that Britain (and even Woodrow) had roles in the origins of the Great War, but they were not the only causes.
I agree, I might have over stepped my bounds in saying they were fully responsible because in that I have contradicted myself before. I believe they were a major point in WWI's beginning, more so than those we currently view in general terms as the parties responsible for it's start.