Historum - History Forums  

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

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 16th, 2017, 11:53 PM   #31

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,050

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
To be objective Kaiser Wilhelm did provoke the British unnecessarily with the naval program and the Germans and British could have been strategic partners against France possibly without this. When I read Dreadnought last year I remember reading that they were on the verge of a deal before an election changed the UK's government. There was no German security need for that navy, it was largely built because the Kaiser liked ships and was jealous of his uncle, I'm not saying that's the only reason it was built but when two naval advisors are giving you contrary advice, he was clearly predisposed to go with the big fleet of capital ships, which could provoke the British rather than a solution that would be custom made for the French.

Now with the British the initial naval arms race was something they had under control and needlessly blew it all up by building the Dreandought putting themselves in a crisis they created themselves. Also if you read Dreadnought(I'll give the author if people want to read it) the British made stuff up to fan the flames after that, by saying the Germans were producing dreadnoughts faster as possible so the MP's would vote them funding for more ships. This resulted in British MP's being more likely to think the fleet was being designed to invade the British home isles as why else would the Germans be building faster than expected and hiding production details? They then fought under the pretext of the neutrality of a country they'd agreed to recognize like what 75 years earlier to prevent this threat? Without the UK, that war probably ends in 1914 and millions of lives are saved but yeah they protecting Belgian neutrality was totally worth it!

Honestly I think the Hapsburgs, Russians and French all deserve more blame for this conflict than the Germans and British who might have been the most innocent peace seeking of the five major powers.
Germany offered a deal regarding the naval build-up, but Britain ignored it. The UK never had any reason to fear Germany, it was more a case of ego. Germany had become a bigger economy than the UK proper (not the Empire overall), and the UK naturally felt a bit off at that. But Germany never had the scope to build a larger navy. The British European policy was never to allow a European country to gain significant influence on the continent. Had it not joined the war, France would have lost, and Germany would at the very least have subdued France if it didn't annex/conquer it. British entry in some form was thus inevitable.
notgivenaway is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 17th, 2017, 01:02 AM   #32
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: Netherlands
Posts: 852

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
The Entente didn't start first though. Germany marched through Belgium first, before any Allied attempts at invasion.
They didn't start WW1, they started plenty of other conquests in the time before it though.
CPTANT is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 01:24 AM   #33

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,632

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTANT View Post
They didn't start WW1, they started plenty of other conquests in the time before it though.
Well, we are talking about WW1 here, aren't we? I assume you are talking about colonial empires, here, and yes the Entente had a lot of colonies. Germany had as well, and they were worse at dealing with the natives than most of the Entente countries (see: Herero and Nama genocide). Though, TBH, Entente countries weren't really enlightened places, Belgians and the French could be quite brutal as well.
Maki is online now  
Old December 17th, 2017, 01:50 AM   #34

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
there were no good guys or bad guys. that's simplistic logic.

Wars and human conflict in general cannot be reduced to that. The notion that Germany was to blame for the war is pretty scant, and something the Allies could force after they won. Britain felt threatened by Germany militarily and economically. France wanted revenge against germany for the Franco-Prussian war.
No, the Allies had a clear moral superiority and Germany wanted the war, the evidence for that is irrefutable, the Schliffen Plan, the Bethman Hollweg memorandum etc.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 01:52 AM   #35

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTANT View Post
The only real difference between Germany and Britain is that Britain choose to conquer "heathens" in Asia, Africa and America and Germany choose to conquer its neighbour.
As did Holland of course! Different time and different context, France, Britian and Belgium were free and democratic societies and had a clear moral superiority to the Central powers.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 02:02 AM   #36

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Growing up it was heavily implied that WWI and WWII were both morally ambigious contests with the "Allies" in both being the good guys. This is nonsense that equates the German Empire with the Nazi's and is propaganda. WWI was really morally ambiguous. It became a lot easier to proclaim WWI as Democracy v Autocracy when the Russians left the war and the Americans joined but in the beginning it was just two sides all fighting for different reasons most of which were legitimate. France was the only major belligerent who was in the war almost solely for revenge so shouldn't they be seen as the worst actor or are they good guys because they had a Republican form of government?

I've said on another popular thread, I'm team Central Powers on this one and that the negative consequences of Central Powers victory would pale compared to what we got. As an American, I just can't think of any negative consequences to my country that would result from our defeat. The same should go with the UK. UK being conquered was never going to happen and regardless of the fate of the French the UK had taken Germany's entire overseas empire and that wasn't going to be reversed if the Germans conquered Paris. Really the only major Allied country who's fate was at risk were the French(even the Italians were never going to be totally taken over by the Hapsburgs they would have probably only taken back Venetia). Meanwhile Allied victory destroyed every enemy belligerent and created a bunch of problems that had a ripple effect.

Feel a lot of people see the world wars as movies where the endings had to result in the winners gaining everything and the losers losing everything but no wars usually don't go this way, and WWI and WWII didn't have to go this way either they did do to a wide array of factors.
No come on, look at Germany's war aims! Britain's was to stop the new German coast visible for Dover. If France had been defeated Britain would assuredly have been next, the Kaiser referred to us as the 'real enemy'
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 02:04 AM   #37

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Good guys don't starve entire nations to death.
OH YES WE DO! Why do you think the German's surrendered in 1918?
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 02:06 AM   #38

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
And that gives you the right to murder civilians? Anyone where from half a million to seven hundred thousand civilians died from food shortages in Germany.

You can't claim the moral high ground, "being the good guys" "fighting tyrannical monarchies" and "German militarism" and get to murder children. No sir, you don't get to get away with that. THAT is moral relativism.

And what is this "moral duty" you speak of? Who is the duty to?
No, if the Germans didn't want to starve all they had to do was get out of France and Belgium which they were busy raping. No sir, you don't get away with that, this is hypocrisy and naivety on your part.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 02:08 AM   #39

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
You are absolutely right. Considering every country involved in World War I did that at one time or another OR were actually in the process of doing that while the war was happening, then I think we can conclude that there are no good guys.
No, there is no comparison between the age of empire and a war between military dictatorships and free and democratic societies.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 02:10 AM   #40

SirOrmondeWinter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,966

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
To be objective Kaiser Wilhelm did provoke the British unnecessarily with the naval program and the Germans and British could have been strategic partners against France possibly without this. When I read Dreadnought last year I remember reading that they were on the verge of a deal before an election changed the UK's government. There was no German security need for that navy, it was largely built because the Kaiser liked ships and was jealous of his uncle, I'm not saying that's the only reason it was built but when two naval advisors are giving you contrary advice, he was clearly predisposed to go with the big fleet of capital ships, which could provoke the British rather than a solution that would be custom made for the French.

Now with the British the initial naval arms race was something they had under control and needlessly blew it all up by building the Dreandought putting themselves in a crisis they created themselves. Also if you read Dreadnought(I'll give the author if people want to read it) the British made stuff up to fan the flames after that, by saying the Germans were producing dreadnoughts faster as possible so the MP's would vote them funding for more ships. This resulted in British MP's being more likely to think the fleet was being designed to invade the British home isles as why else would the Germans be building faster than expected and hiding production details? They then fought under the pretext of the neutrality of a country they'd agreed to recognize like what 75 years earlier to prevent this threat? Without the UK, that war probably ends in 1914 and millions of lives are saved but yeah they protecting Belgian neutrality was totally worth it!

Honestly I think the Hapsburgs, Russians and French all deserve more blame for this conflict than the Germans and British who might have been the most innocent peace seeking of the five major powers.
No, the Germans more of less forced the Austrians into it, the Russians and French did not want the war, Germany were always the aggressors.
SirOrmondeWinter is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
entente, guilty, guys, ww1



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which side during the Crusades were the relative "good guys"? Futurist Middle Eastern and African History 180 January 5th, 2018 07:52 AM
Wars with clear-cut good guys and bad guys? WhatAnArtist War and Military History 64 October 7th, 2016 03:31 PM
UK support to Entente in ww1 Azatoth European History 5 December 31st, 2015 01:54 AM
Who were the good guys in Vietnam? Toltec Asian History 52 May 20th, 2010 09:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.