Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: Who's side are you on?
The Central Powers 85 29.82%
The Triple Entente 116 40.70%
Neither one of them 84 29.47%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 11th, 2012, 11:47 AM   #721

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
I don't envisage the Germans marching on Moscow. So long as the fighting is kept reasonably close to the border they can win, as thye did in 1914-17. And if Russia is better led than in 1914 (not necessarily saying much) it is also a lot less industrialised.



Actually I do - I assume the French will intervene. But I also assume that with no British army and no bloclkade the Germans win.



But as yet GB doesn't fear Germany as a naval rival, and she is less of an economic competitor than she will be by 1914. It took a whole generation to bring Britain into the anti-German camp.



Agreed. And it was the British involvement which made it one.
You sir make some very valid and persuavise agruments.

But I need to jump back to a point you made earlier, ergo:

An earlier crisis in the Balkans, and the British not being involved.

I find this a critical hinge, since the one of the only other serious threats in the Balkans would have been the Ottoman Empire. If that's the case then you have the Ottomans, who had for quite some time been supported by Britain to maintain European balance getting involved in a possible war with Austria-Hungry, thus pulling in German on Austria's side and Britain and on the Ottoman's side. Now where will Russia and France fall into this? France for the Ottomans and Russia for Austria?
Paragonrex is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 11th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #722

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The British, French, and Belgians were the good guys. Why? Because I see no reason why Belgium should've been invaded and treated so poorly. Second, I also think that the assassination of a political leader by a single person is a terrible excuse to invade an entire country, like Austria-Hungary did. Lastly, I am inclined to support democratic republics, like France, and am not a fan of the political and social views supported by Germany and Austria-Hungary.
First of all I like to say, that of course everybody here could have support the side he likes. So if halomanuk supports the british, cos he is british, I can fully understand it. I had relatives in WWI and I would have support germany and independent from the question if germany was on the good or the bad side.
But I have my problems with statements like those above.
The belgians were the good guys! Already under King Leopold II Belgians installed the most brutal colonial rule ever. and allthough the Congo was technically private property of the King till 1908 the atrocities went on, even in a smaller scale. between 1880 and 1920 the population of the Congo was reduced by ca. 50%. Nearly 10 million people were murdered or died as consequence of the Belgian politics. Belgium did not provoke Germany to invade it in 1914, that is correct, but good guys are something else, I think.
I agree, that it is a poor excuse if a single person is killing a political leader of another nation. You are American. i would like to know, what will happen if Biden and his wife or would have happened under the Bush administration if Cheney and his wife would have been assassinated by an Iranian terrorist? and there is another mistake. Gavrilo princip was not a single terrorist. he was supplied by e.g. the chief of the Serbian Military Secret Service Dragutin Dimitrijevic. Nikola Pasic, chief of the serbian government knew about the assassination coup. So what would happen, if Ahmadinedjad would knew about a assassination attempt of the chief of the Iranian secret service and a terrorist would kill Biden or had killed Cheney?

The third is the view, that it was a struggle between democratic countries and unsocial monarchies. I am not a fan of the political system in germany in 1914. But Germany had free elections, different parties a parliament. Britain and Italy were parliamentary monarcies as well, even if a bit more progressive. But what's about Zsarist Russia e.g.?
beorna is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 02:24 PM   #723

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,218

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
First of all I like to say, that of course everybody here could have support the side he likes. So if halomanuk supports the british, cos he is british, I can fully understand it. I had relatives in WWI and I would have support germany and independent from the question if germany was on the good or the bad side.
But I have my problems with statements like those above.
The belgians were the good guys! Already under King Leopold II Belgians installed the most brutal colonial rule ever. and allthough the Congo was technically private property of the King till 1908 the atrocities went on, even in a smaller scale. between 1880 and 1920 the population of the Congo was reduced by ca. 50%. Nearly 10 million people were murdered or died as consequence of the Belgian politics. Belgium did not provoke Germany to invade it in 1914, that is correct, but good guys are something else, I think.
I agree, that it is a poor excuse if a single person is killing a political leader of another nation. You are American. i would like to know, what will happen if Biden and his wife or would have happened under the Bush administration if Cheney and his wife would have been assassinated by an Iranian terrorist? and there is another mistake. Gavrilo princip was not a single terrorist. he was supplied by e.g. the chief of the Serbian Military Secret Service Dragutin Dimitrijevic. Nikola Pasic, chief of the serbian government knew about the assassination coup. So what would happen, if Ahmadinedjad would knew about a assassination attempt of the chief of the Iranian secret service and a terrorist would kill Biden or had killed Cheney?

The third is the view, that it was a struggle between democratic countries and unsocial monarchies. I am not a fan of the political system in germany in 1914. But Germany had free elections, different parties a parliament. Britain and Italy were parliamentary monarcies as well, even if a bit more progressive. But what's about Zsarist Russia e.g.?
Beorna, I'm sorry you have problems with statements made in my post. I just don't see the Germans as being the good guys in WWI. First, it is absolutely true that the Belgians had one of the worst colonial regimes ever. However, if colonial regimes are determining who are the 'good guys', the Germans would fare worse than all except Belgium - I am referring to the Herero and Namaqua genocide. The difference is that the Germans invaded Belgium and treated the local population harshly by standard of the day. If the Belgians invaded Germany I would feel the opposite.

Second, I completely agree with you about the politics of the different countries. The country I agree with most is France. I agree with the French politics of the day more than any other country. I am happy that most countries today are democratic republics or have embraced similar values. I also like Britain because she was willing to change. On the other hand, I am less inclined to see Tsarist Russia positively than I am Imperial Germany. I am not a fan of Italy, or Austria-Hungary, or the Ottoman political systems either. In other words, I don't like the politics of any of the European countries involved in WWI except for France and to a lesser extent, Britain. The two countries I agree with are two of the three main countries of the triple entente, and arguably leaders in the alliance. I agree with none of the central powers.

The part about me being American and someone assassinating Cheney is confusing. I'm aware of the detailed history of how WWI started. I think that is interesting history that you had relatives fight for Germany in WWI but on the other hand I don't see how that plays into your argument. I had a relative by marriage who fought for the Kaiser in WWI too, but I don't think that is noteworthy in determining who were the good guys. For these reasons, I won't take this part of the argument into account.

In conclusion, I think the Belgians were the good guys because they were a neutral country that was invaded and they fought to to expel the invader. I think the French were the good guys politically. I think the British are the good guys because they intervened when the Germans invaded a neutral country. I don't really see Italy or Russia as 'the good guys' but on the other hand I see none of the central powers as so.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:44 PM   #724

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
Beorna, I'm sorry you have problems with statements made in my post.
No need to feel sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
I just don't see the Germans as being the good guys in WWI. First, it is absolutely true that the Belgians had one of the worst colonial regimes ever. However, if colonial regimes are determining who are the 'good guys', the Germans would fare worse than all except Belgium - I am referring to the Herero and Namaqua genocide. The difference is that the Germans invaded Belgium and treated the local population harshly by standard of the day. If the Belgians invaded Germany I would feel the opposite.
I don't see the germans as the good guys, too. But I really fail to see any good guy on the other side as well.
We had some discussions here about the herero and nama uprise
http://www.historum.com/current-even...de-1904-a.html
The german behaviour towards Herero and nama was criminal, but the most of the story was blown up by the british during and after WWI as propaganda. There is no real evidence, that german politics towards colonial uprises was more brutal than those of other colonial powers, like the Uk, France, the USA or others.
The occupation of Belgium was of course harsh and there were a few incidents who were criminal. Leuven and Dinant are for sure the most prominent and darkest incidents. But there are as well others like Arlon or Soumagne. It seems, that there was a great franctireur panic among the germans, which caused this. In many cases the franctireur panic was just paranoia, but belgian franctireurs existed and the garde civic non active fought in the first time of the war without uniforms and sometimes with shotguns, which made the situation so dangerous for civilians. I think these problematic is very difficile. We shouldn't discuss it here. It was a sad, but typical war phenomenon and had many psychological aspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
Second, I completely agree with you about the politics of the different countries. The country I agree with most is France. I agree with the French politics of the day more than any other country. I am happy that most countries today are democratic republics or have embraced similar values. I also like Britain because she was willing to change. On the other hand, I am less inclined to see Tsarist Russia positively than I am Imperial Germany. I am not a fan of Italy, or Austria-Hungary, or the Ottoman political systems either. In other words, I don't like the politics of any of the European countries involved in WWI except for France and to a lesser extent, Britain. The two countries I agree with are two of the three main countries of the triple entente, and arguably leaders in the alliance. I agree with none of the central powers.
Well, France may have been the most democratic country. nevertheless was it this country that was eager for revange for 1870/71. Together with Russia they both worked for a war against Germany. So I see no need to see them as good guys. britain is difficult, but obviously they just defended the integrity of germany. They allways made a politics of balance of power and it was germany which was seen as bigger threat for the position of britain in the world. So Belgium was a good excuse to go to war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The part about me being American and someone assassinating Cheney is confusing. I'm aware of the detailed history of how WWI started. I think that is interesting history that you had relatives fight for Germany in WWI but on the other hand I don't see how that plays into your argument. I had a relative by marriage who fought for the Kaiser in WWI too, but I don't think that is noteworthy in determining who were the good guys. For these reasons, I won't take this part of the argument into account.
Well you wrote about a single terrorist. it was not. serbia wanted to destabilize its norther neighbour. I have no doubt your country would go to war for the same and Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, that the US even went to war with faked evidence. so the argumentation that the central powers had no need to react is really questionable.
The family relation are not related with the above. I just said, that I have no problem with the decisions here to had support the one or the other side. It is just the argumentation of a "good entente" against bad or evil "central powers" that is more fiction than real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
In conclusion, I think the Belgians were the good guys because they were a neutral country that was invaded and they fought to to expel the invader. I think the French were the good guys politically. I think the British are the good guys because they intervened when the Germans invaded a neutral country. I don't really see Italy or Russia as 'the good guys' but on the other hand I see none of the central powers as so.
The reasons and the guilt for WWI is hot debated. many see germany as the only or the major responsible for it. If one looks on the french and russian politics before the war, such statements seem to be highly questionable. The willingness of france and Russia to go to war and a stupid foreign policy of germany in the years before the war, made it difficult for germany. In a war on both fronts, germany had no chance if they would wait. So germany had to attack first to have a chance to win. An attack thru belgium was necessary for this. This of course would attack the neutrality of these country. Germany acted in this war like it was militarily necessary, unfortunately it was politically suicide.

So if you would have supported the entente if you had lived in those era, this is your opinion which i respect. But if you chose their side because they were the good guys, then i think you deceive yourself.
beorna is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 05:31 PM   #725

Theguy8882's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Philadelhpia, PA
Posts: 177

Would this thread qualify as the longest running argument in historum history?
Theguy8882 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:47 AM   #726
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theguy8882 View Post
Would this thread qualify as the longest running argument in historum history?
As thread maker, I didn't expect this .
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 02:57 AM   #727

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

Well it also comes down to agreements between the countries :

If Serbia got involved then Russia would be obliged to help.
If Russia got involved then France would be obliged to help.
If France got involved then Great Britain would be obliged to intervene.

The same concerns the Central Powers:

If Austria/Hungary got involved then Germany would be obliged to intervene.
Its basically like a house of cards,which escalated more than anyone really wanted.
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 05:33 AM   #728
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

Quote:
Originally Posted by astafjevs View Post
Total war was the fault of the Great Powers, and British involvement was the fault of pompous Victorian diplomacy
I may have been inclined to believe that - just - had WWI actually taken place in the Victorian period.
Brunel is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 06:21 AM   #729

astafjevs's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Bristol, England
Posts: 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
I may have been inclined to believe that - just - had WWI actually taken place in the Victorian period.
Good point. The alliances were Edwardian, signed in 1904 and 1907. For some reason I thought they were about ten years earlier.
astafjevs is offline  
Old December 12th, 2012, 10:27 AM   #730

Sandels's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 93

Central Powers. As a Finn I respect the help that Germany has provided us throughout history, for example during 1917-1918. Cant see myself siding with Russians.
Sandels is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 08:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 08:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.