Germany to complete WWI reparations at last.

Amazing I thought that was done long ago I wonder who is to be paid apparently no one is too sure anymore.

Germany to complete WWI reparations

Quote:

---

RTE News Thursday, 30 September 2010 15:14

Germany will this weekend pay the last instalment of the reparations it owes from WWI, 92 years after the conflict ended.

The reparations were imposed by the victorious allies.

At midnight on Sunday, they will receive the last payment of €70m.

These 'reparations' were intended partly by the Allies, particularly France, to keep Germany weak.

However, the ultimate effect was the opposite, playing a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power and WWII, according to historians.

The victors forced the Germans to admit in effect in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles that the war was their fault, and to commit to pay crippling amounts for decades to come.

After much in-fighting among the Allies, who were also in debt to each other from the war, Germany, on the brink of starvation and revolution, was presented with a bill of 269bn gold marks.

It soon became clear that Germany could not pay.

First came hyperinflation, which saw at its height a billion-mark note, and France, frustrated by the lack of payment, occupied Germany's Ruhr industrial area in 1923, the same year as Hitler's abortive Beer Hall Putsch in Munich.

The 1924 Dawes plan and the 1929 Young plan dramatically reduced the burden, and the 1932 Lausanne Conference suspended all repayments in the wake of the Great Depression.

Many historians say that Germany in fact could have paid, particularly after the reparations were sharply reduced and Germany was loaned huge amounts of money.

But it was their symbolism that counted. Hitler was able to play on resentment to the reparations and the famous 'War Guilt Clause' in the Treaty of Versailles to gain support in the chaotic inter-war years.

After WWII, the new West Germany - but not the communist East Germany - agreed at the 1953 London conference to repay its interwar debts, albeit a much reduced amount, something it completed in 1980.

One loose end though was interest payments on loans taken out under the Dawes and Young plans that piled up between 1945 and the conference in the English capital.

It was agreed that this would be paid when and if East and West Germany ever reunified.

This was seen as so unlikely at the time that it was akin to forgiving the debt, and the original loan certificates became historical curiosities for sale at flea markets.

But in 1990, the unthinkable happened, and Germany - whilst celebrating unity after decades of painful division - said it would repay, costing it around €200m.

The debts have been resold so many times that nobody really knows whom exactly Germany now owes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Amazing I thought that was done long ago I wonder who is to be paid apparently no one is too sure anymore.

Germany to complete WWI reparations

---

Interesting story.

That's great for Germany! :thumbsup:



France, it is estimated, by the most optimistic scenarios will have finished paying her WWI reparations in a 700 years.

I suppose it's time to start again so :smg: now it's all paid off apparently

I saw this on the news last night. Fascinating that it took so long and was actually paid off so long after the war ended! Chivalry still exists I guess!

Hmm - better late than never.

Louis VI - what reparations?

probably from the Napoleonic times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Louis VI - what reparations?

---

Reparations to repair damages of WWI.


For that is what is meant by WWI reparations. WWI was faught on French soil. So all damages were French, not German. Therefore, the fourteen points, the pre-armistice agreements, the armistice - all stated explicitly that Germany was to pay reparations to France for all of the damages incurred.
This was lowered by a magnanimous French delegation in the actual peace treaty (articles 231 and 232): Germany would only be required to pay insofar as Germany could afford to pay. France would pay all of the remainder. France agreed to bear the lion's share of the costs of WWI in this manner to make the peace with Germany, and to ensure anglo, especially US, assistance in the case of renewed German agression.


What little was asked of Germany as reparations was subsequently repeatedly lowered. In the end, Germany has paid total reparations only marginally higher than the value of what the defeated, retreating German troops plundered and destroyed in the last few weeks of the war, as negotiations were nearing completion already.
This tiny amount which Germany actually paid was substantially lower than what Germany was loaned to enable Germany to pay. To top it off, in 1932, Germany publicly stated that it would never repay these loans.


The staggering conclusion is: Germany made a financial profit from WWI reparations.


The pocket change that Germany paid today I estimate is about equal to just the annual cost France and Belgium incur each year in just removing and storing WWI ammunition. This is only getting worse every year, as the ammunition becomes more instable. The job to clean the soil of WWI ammunition is estimated to last for at least another 700 years. That is the optimistic estimate. And that's just the ammunition problem. So I'm happy for Germany that it is finished paying for WWI. France and Belgium, meanwhile, will pay reparations for all eternity.


All of which wouldn't be so bad, if only the persistent myths about Versailles wouldn't reverse all of the above in the public imagination. German propaganda since 1918 has proved so succesful that to this day public opinion and amateur historians repeat a German ultra-nationalist narrative concerning the subject.

As ridiculous today as they were in 1919.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

As ridiculous today as they were in 1919.

---

You're right Germany was minding it's own buisness.

And don't give me that tired old powder keg line. I've been exchanging eye ***** with this girl in my bio class but if I was to jump on top of her I would still be arrested.

That analogy makes sense

If you love Germany so much why don't you marry it.

Throw out that saurkruat get with that liberity cabbage.

Etc.

"As ridiculous today as they were in 1919" Yeap. Not enought, ridiculously low...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Reparations to repair damages of WWI.

~snip

---

Kind of the risk you take when forming entangling alliances on the Continent.

A bit of history.

Quote:

---

Wilhelm was a friend of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este, and he was deeply shocked by his assassination on 28 June 1914. Wilhelm offered to support Austria-Hungary in crushing the Black Hand, the secret organization that had plotted the killing, and even sanctioned the use of force by Austria against the perceived source of the movement—Serbia (this is often called "the blank cheque"). He wanted to remain in Berlin until the crisis was resolved, but his courtiers persuaded him instead to go on his annual cruise of the North Sea on 6 July 1914. It was perhaps realized that Wilhelm's presence would be more of a hindrance to those elements in the government who wished to use the crisis to increase German prestige, even at the risk of general war—something of which Wilhelm, for all his bluster, was extremely apprehensive.

Wilhelm made erratic attempts to stay on top of the crisis via telegram, and when the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was delivered to Serbia, he hurried back to Berlin. He reached Berlin on 28 July, read a copy of the Serbian reply, and wrote on it:

A brilliant solution—and in barely 48 hours! This is more than could have been expected. A great moral victory for Vienna; but with it every pretext for war falls to the ground, and [the Ambassador] Giesl had better have stayed quietly at Belgrade. On this document, I should never have given orders for mobilization.

Unknown to the Emperor, Austro-Hungarian ministers and generals had already convinced the 84-year-old Francis Joseph I of Austria to sign a declaration of war against Serbia. As a direct consequence, Russia began a general mobilization to attack Austria in defense of Serbia.

On the night of 30 July, when handed a document stating that Russia would not cancel its mobilization, Wilhelm wrote a lengthy commentary containing the startling observations:

"For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves—knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria—to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us ... Our dilemma over keeping faith with the old and honorable Emperor has been exploited to create a situation which gives England the excuse she has been seeking to annihilate us with a spurious appearance of justice on the pretext that she is helping France and maintaining the well-known Balance of Power in Europe, i.e. playing off all European States for her own benefit against us."

When it became clear that the United Kingdom would enter the war if Germany attacked France through neutral Belgium, the panic-stricken Wilhelm attempted to redirect the main attack against Russia. When Helmuth von Moltke (the younger) told him that this was impossible, Wilhelm said: "Your uncle would have given me a different answer!" Wilhelm is also reported to have said: "To think that George and Nicky should have played me false! If my grandmother had been alive, she would never have allowed it."

It is difficult to argue that Wilhelm actively sought to unleash the First World War. Though he had ambitions for the German Empire to be a world power, it was never Wilhelm's intention to conjure a large-scale conflict to achieve such ends. As soon as his better judgment dictated that a world war was imminent, he made strenuous efforts to preserve the peace—such as The Willy-Nicky Correspondence mentioned earlier, and his optimistic interpretation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum that Austro-Hungarian troops should go no further than Belgrade, thus limiting the conflict. But by then it was far too late, for the eager military officials of Germany and the German Foreign Office were successful in persuading him to sign the mobilisation order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan that envisioned the occupation of Paris within 40 days. The contemporary British reference to the First World War as "the Kaiser's War" in the same way that the Second was "Hitler's War" is not wholly accurate in its suggestion that Wilhelm was deliberately responsible for unleashing the conflict. "He may not have been 'the father of war' but he was certainly its godfather' (A. Woodcock-Clarke). According to the book, All Quiet on the Western Front, Remarque talks about the Kaiser's visit to the western front and how unimpressed he was by his height and speech.

His own love of the culture and trappings of militarism and push to endorse the German military establishment and industry (most notably the Krupp corporation), which were the key support which enabled his dynasty to rule helped push his empire into an armaments race with competing European powers. Similarly, though on signing the mobilisation order, Wilhelm is reported as having said, "You will regret this, gentlemen." He had encouraged Austria to pursue a hard line with Serbia, was an enthusiastic supporter of the subsequent German actions during the war, and reveled in the title of "Supreme War Lord" and "Allerhöchste" (All-highest).

---

Austria was at fault for turning a terrorist assasination into a pretext for war with Serbia and Russia was at fault for bringing the major powers into the war. Germany and the others were just adhering to their poorly thought out alliance obligations.

AtpG, PJ - the issue is not about war guilt. Or who started it. Or to what extent each party is to blame.


The issue is this:
AtpG and Louis fight with PJ. The entire fight takes place in the house of Louis. In fact, his hallway and part of his living room get completely trashed. Louis and AtpG however manage to subdue PJ and forcefully throw him out. As PJ is thrown out, PJ begs for peace while simultaneously stealing whatever he can put in his pockets and trashing everything else.
At 11:11 PM peace is made as PJ promises to pay Louis for all of the damages to Louis' house.

What would be a fair peace? Louis on his own to pay for all of the reparations to Louis' house? PJ to keep everything he stole? Surely that is preposterous. For one, the peace would then reverse the verdict of the war.


What else then?
Standard procedure is that the winner gets fully compensated by the loser. In this case, PJ's defeat was accepted on the condition that PJ returns everything he nicked and pays full reparation costs for everything that gor destroyed.
Angels, for their part, might make a peace whereby PJ promises to return what he stole, and then agree a financial agreement between all parties to share the reparation costs.

Louis however, being more magnanimous than angels still, offers to pay for the vast majority of the reparations and agrees that PJ can even substract from his share of the reparations any loot PJ cares to return. To seal the deal, noble AtpG even lends PJ more money than PJ will ever need to compensate Louis. This all must surely rank as the most idealistic, noble and magnanimous concilliation effort in living memory.

(Alas, however. As it turns out PJ was never interested in concilliation. For immediately upon his loss, PJ started meticulous, planned preparations for another attack on Louis and AtpG, never losing sight of this one goal.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Austria was at fault for turning a terrorist assasination into a pretext for war with Serbia and Russia was at fault for bringing the major powers into the war. Germany and the others were just adhering to their poorly thought out alliance obligations.

---

For the record, Russia was not responsible for involving the major powers. Russia was allied to Serbia, so the Austrians started involving major powers by attacking Serbia, with German encouragement. Germany completed the process by declaring war on Russia and France, and provoking war with Brittan. Germany cannot be excused on the grounds of the Triple Alliance because it only required Germany to help Austria if Austria was attacked by two major powers. That had not happened. Russia can be excused on the same grounds that you would excuse Germany because all Russia did was mobilize its forces to support its ally.

OK, there are some things to be said in Austria and Germany’s defense. However, it is simply not accurate to blame the Russians for what Austria and Germany did between them.

https://i717.photobucket.com/albums/...oberfest01.gif

“Austria was at fault for turning a terrorist assassination into a pretext for war with Serbia and Russia was at fault for bringing the major powers into the war.”
So, Russia should have let Austria to invade Serbia, no further than Belgrade, the Serbian Capital, so the Serbs humiliation was just a little price to pay for the comfort of the poor Austro-Hungarian Empire that was just occupying Bosnia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

https://i717.photobucket.com/albums/...oberfest01.gif

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3cxSj8SUM8

All in all I think that if Germany paid GB, they can start paying Poland.
They did not pay majority of WW2 reparations.
Damages only in Warsaw are being estimated on 100.000.000.000 USD.

Anyway I knew about problems with remaining amunition but I was sure Germany is paying for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

As ridiculous today as they were in 1919.

---

Agreed.

There is nobody who can point out why it really started in the first place, I'd blame Russia and the Serbs first if there really is to blame anyone, the 'incident' was no accident but a deliberate attempt to lure the axis into an unwinnable war. The highest levels of Serbian and Russian government worked towards it, there can really be no doubt about that when you read the correspondence, the need for an incident is even literally on paper.

Edit, no no German encouragemt Brandy Blue, it was Germany who pressed for the two-week ultimatum. Corresponce of that exists as well. It was a Prussian habit to deliver a strategy every year, the existance of these strategies is really all the guilt-question is based upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

Anyway I knew about problems with remaining amunition but I was sure Germany is paying for it.

---

Germany has not paid reparations since 1931. (And barely anything before that)

The little pocket change that is the subject of this thread, is not a reparations payment. It is a repayment of a loan Germany received to pay reparations. However, Germany used it to pay neither the reparations, nor did it repay the loans. Germany did, however, happily use the money to prepare, even re-arm, itself to plunge the world into war again.

The allies of WWI had come to accept that they themselves have paid for all of the damages of WWI. However, after 1990, it was requested that Germany at least refund some of the substantial profit Germany made from reparations. This Germany has now done.



All of which would be fine. Were it not, that this repayment is presented all over the web as 'Germany finally done paying reparations!'. 'How chivalrous of them that they paid it all!'. 'How evil of the allies to suck Germany dry for ninety years!'.
All three of which are, as is customary for the reparations issue, factually incorrect, and/or, as is even more common, based on fundamentally erroneous notions.



My favourite author:
'Reparations reconsiderd: a reminder'. http://www.jstor.org/pss/4545548

Very interesting, thanks louis. It seems like we have a big need for an explanation of why wwii happened and grasp at anything conveniently simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Agreed.

There is nobody who can point out why it really started in the first place, I'd blame Russia and the Serbs first if there really is to blame anyone, the 'incident' was no accident but a deliberate attempt to lure the axis into an unwinnable war. The highest levels of Serbian and Russian government worked towards it, there can really be no doubt about that when you read the correspondence, the need for an incident is even literally on paper.

Edit, no no German encouragemt Brandy Blue, it was Germany who pressed for the two-week ultimatum. Corresponce of that exists as well. It was a Prussian habit to deliver a strategy every year, the existance of these strategies is really all the guilt-question is based upon.

---

I blame the imperialist societies they all came from 19century morals and thinking but using the massed industrial arms of the 20century a big recipe for disaster.

People educated to read in order work but not to really think about the posters exhorting people to come to the aid of "Poor Little Belgium" etc etc hey wait a minute Ireland is a small country why do I have to fight your war.

The sad thing is it could all happen again cos were still suffering the same structural problems the world faced then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It seems like we have a big need for an explanation of why wwii happened and grasp at anything conveniently simple.

---

Two problems conspire against a simple explanation. Firstly, the events of the 1920's and 30's are excruciatingly complicated. Secondly, by their nature, these events do not lend themselves well to simplification.

Some historical events one can simplify and still leave their essence intact. This is not readily possible with the Treaty of Versailles, or reparations. A simplification here often leads to stating the exact opposite. Reality, propaganda, and perception need to be carefully distuingished, to an extent that precludes any simplification.



Compare:

German nationalist propaganda said that international Jewry abused temporary German weakness in a bid to enslave Germany forever. Germans were lured to think they had to resist Jewish domination to survive as a nation. This caused the Holocaust.

One can not simplify this into:

International Jewry wanted to enslave Germany forever. Germany resisted this enslavement. This caused the Holocaust.

The simplified version omisses the crucial aspects of the events. It ends up stating what amounts to almost the exact opposite of the longer version of events. It is likewise with the reparations issue.

WWI reparations, I would dare say, are the exact opposite of what public opinion generally makes of them. 'Versailles mythology' is not a reliable narrative of events with some nuances left out for brevity, no, Versailles mythology is wrong to its core, and is the exact opposite of reality.
As a brief case in point, I'll again state the startling conclusion of many modern economic historians that, far from bringing it to destitution, Germany made a financial profit from WWI reparations. Until 1932, Germany received more money to pay for reparations than it ever paid in reparations. (WWI was no exception to the rule that losing a war to America is a most profitable business.)

Quote:

---

German reparations, an excruciatingly tangled thicket into which only a few intrepid explorers have ventured. Understandably, most students of twentieth-century history have preferred to sidestep the perils of travel on territory of extreme financial complexity and, as a consequence, a number of misconceptions about the history of German reparations remain in circulation. This brief summary is not addressed to those few brave trailblazers, whose work it indeed salutes, but rather to those many who have assiduously avoided the subject and to the myths about reparations which still adorn studies of the Weimar Republic and interwar history.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ne&aid=2869676

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I blame the imperialist societies they all came from 19century morals and thinking but using the massed industrial arms of the 20century a big recipe for disaster.

---

More the transportation I think, the powers were building railroads like crazy, with Russia only slightly behind, making the threat of war much more accute, full deployment being a matter of weeks was mostly new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

More the transportation I think, the powers were building railroads like crazy, with Russia only slightly behind, making the threat of war much more accute, full deployment being a matter of weeks was mostly new.

---

Actually WW1 is a brilliant example of how Globalisation DOES not stop war your point being a good example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Agreed.

Edit, no no German encouragemt Brandy Blue, it was Germany who pressed for the two-week ultimatum. Corresponce of that exists as well. It was a Prussian habit to deliver a strategy every year, the existance of these strategies is really all the guilt-question is based upon.

---

Thanks for the information. Its always good to learn. I still think it makes no sense to say that Germany did nothing but honor its treaty obligations. That does not mean I am saying they were "guilty," just that they cannot be justified by that particular argument.

Does the correspondance you refer to mean that there was no "blank check?" I would have thought that it would count as encouraging the Austrians to go to war by promising support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

Does the correspondance you refer to mean that there was no "blank check?" I would have thought that it would count as encouraging the Austrians to go to war by promising support.

---

Wilhelm's 'blank check' was given for limited penal action against Serbia and specifically the 'Black Hand' terrorist group that killed his friend, Franz Ferdinand. Hawks in the Austrian court manipulated it's intent to gain the support of the old emporor, Franz Joseph I, for the full destruction of Serbia.

@Louis - I hardly think the fact that Germany was able to keep the majority of fighting away from it's frontiers is justification for reparations. France was very eager for war itself, esprit de revanche and all.

Thank you for explaining that, Panzer. The "check" wasn't really blank, then.

“Germany was able to keep the majority of fighting away from it's frontiers is justification for reparations”
No? But that is why Germany imposed Reparation on France for 1870 for having STARTING the war.
So to invade and pillage and destroy others territories then when battle is lost, signed a quick Peace Treaty in order to avoid invasion, then good enough?
But I know share the view of Pershing. The Allies should have kick the German Army until Berlin, and then the victors should have parade in Berlin. This would have convinced the Germans they lost of war in battle, not with a stab in the back.

“France was very eager for war itself, esprit de revanche and all.”
Yeap. France was waiting for it, and Wilhelm in giving Austria a support not intended in their Alliance (that was only defensive) offered the revanche on a silver (bloody) plate paying high price for it.
However France didn’t attack Germany.
And I always find funny that the French are pointed out for their inadmissible Esprit de Revanche when the poor German Post WW1 and Pre WW2, having been humiliated by a defeat were entitled to seek revenge.
Bad French…

"Thank you for explaining that, Panzer. The "check" wasn't really blank, then" It was. Why the Serbian's Allies would have accepted this smoke screen. Why the Serbs would have accepted the line? Austria wanted the war, and Germany support gave them the check they used it full.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Agreed.

There is nobody who can point out why it really started in the first place, I'd blame Russia and the Serbs first if there really is to blame anyone, the 'incident' was no accident but a deliberate attempt to lure the axis into an unwinnable war. The highest levels of Serbian and Russian government worked towards it, there can really be no doubt about that when you read the correspondence, the need for an incident is even literally on paper.

Edit, no no German encouragemt Brandy Blue, it was Germany who pressed for the two-week ultimatum. Corresponce of that exists as well. It was a Prussian habit to deliver a strategy every year, the existance of these strategies is really all the guilt-question is based upon.

---

That\s highly illogical. Serbian government was at odds with the Black Hand, the idea and the plan of the assassination was made by kids practically (oldest was 27, the rest were minors), Black Hand just provided the weapons and in the end, Serbian ambassador in Vienna tried to warn Austrians, even if he did put it vaguely.

Serbia just finished fighting in two wars, Russia was behind in terms of industrialization but was catching up. At the same time, Austrian position was weakening. No reason to force war in 1914.

Based on the situation and on the evidence, there is nothing to suggest that there were high level plots to that would escalate in the first global conflict. Conspiracy theories I don`t buy

Not that illogical if they expected the axis to lose, I don't have the material here but I'll get back on it later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Germany was able to keep the majority of fighting away from it's frontiers is justification for reparations”
No? But that is why Germany imposed Reparation on France for 1870 for having STARTING the war.
So to invade and pillage and destroy others territories then when battle is lost, signed a quick Peace Treaty in order to avoid invasion, then good enough?
But I know share the view of Pershing. The Allies should have kick the German Army until Berlin, and then the victors should have parade in Berlin. This would have convinced the Germans they lost of war in battle, not with a stab in the back.

---

You're right, and the Americans should've stayed home and watched the French and British try. I'm sure you'd have made it to Berlin - but I don't know about a victory parade.

Quote:

---

“France was very eager for war itself, esprit de revanche and all.”
Yeap. France was waiting for it, and Wilhelm in giving Austria a support not intended in their Alliance (that was only defensive) offered the revanche on a silver (bloody) plate paying high price for it.
However France didn’t attack Germany.
And I always find funny that the French are pointed out for their inadmissible Esprit de Revanche when the poor German Post WW1 and Pre WW2, having been humiliated by a defeat were entitled to seek revenge.
Bad French…

---

I don't think a whole lot of people think the Germans under Hitler were entitled to seek revenge. It's one part of the complex explanation for why WW2 happened. Just as French revanchism is one part (maybe smaller) of the complex explanation for why WW1 happened.

“You're right, and the Americans should've stayed home and watched the French and British try. I'm sure you'd have made it to Berlin - but I don't know about a victory parade.”
It is a History Forum.
For the French Bashing forum and insults, you should try somewhere else.

The arrival of the US on the battlefield was the last signal for Germany of a prospect of an endless line of supply in men and material. This was the reason of the last Ludendorff Offensive in August 1918, offensive that failed against the French and the English. It was at this moment that Ludendorff told the Kaiser the war was lost and he should ask for the conditions.

So to answer your comment in your tone what did the US did before 1918 except watching the French and the English defeating wave after wave of German attacks?

I do not want to show any disdain to the US soldiers as their courage was at the same level than their Allies, but their experience were much lower than the English, Canadians or French.
Then if you want to claim that the US won the war would you be kind to explain me the collapse of Hungarian Austrian Empire, Bulgaria and others German Allies on battlefields where US troops never put a foot.
So, yes, the French and English would have done to Berlin as the German armies were in full retreat and the social Revolution having started.

“Just as French revanchism is one part (maybe smaller) of the complex explanation for why WW1 happened”
Ooohhh, so the French wanted to take back what was stolen to them and that was revanchism. I appreciate the “maybe”…
I am still amazed to see this attempt to put the blame on all participants when history show that there are 3 participants that had no choice as they were attacked: Serbia, Belgium and France. All the others had a choice.

The idea that the US brought anything meaningful to WWI is quite widespread among some americans. I've even seen many of them claim that the US won the war mostly by themselves.

The whole "France (and UK) sucks" thing has been so much blown out of proportion during the Bush era that it's barely surprising. Shameful but not surprising.

Quote:

---

I don't think a whole lot of people think the Germans under Hitler were entitled to seek revenge. It's one part of the complex explanation for why WW2 happened. Just as French revanchism is one part (maybe smaller) of the complex explanation for why WW1 happened.

---

I think many part of Germans simply belied into nazism ans shared this point of view.

Anyway in my opinion American industry was far more important for Ententa (don't know english name - non Central States) than American soldiers. I don't mean American soldiers were bad - industry and supplies were more important into 1917.

The US brought, to both world wars, an untouchable industrial base and fresh meat. Strategically, the US let Germany, France, and the UK bleed themselves white before jumping on board to tip the war the Allies way. Pretty smart, really, but not a nice way to treat your so-called friends.

The whole "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" thing comes from Americans that haven't seen the French casualty numbers, or read about Verdun. We haven't had the pleasure of hosting our own war since 1865, so the joys of local industrialized warfare are lost on us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“You're right, and the Americans should've stayed home and watched the French and British try. I'm sure you'd have made it to Berlin - but I don't know about a victory parade.”
It is a History Forum.
For the French Bashing forum and insults, you should try somewhere else.

---

Where did I bash the French in that? Is it bashing to express doubts to the ability of the French and English to defeat the Germans without any assistance from the United States?

Quote:

---

The arrival of the US on the battlefield was the last signal for Germany of a prospect of an endless line of supply in men and material. This was the reason of the last Ludendorff Offensive in August 1918, offensive that failed against the French and the English. It was at this moment that Ludendorff told the Kaiser the war was lost and he should ask for the conditions.

So to answer your comment in your tone what did the US did before 1918 except watching the French and the English defeating wave after wave of German attacks?

---

We were selling the Entente way more weapons than we sold the Central Powers, far more than was appropriate for a supposedly neutral country.

Quote:

---

I do not want to show any disdain to the US soldiers as their courage was at the same level than their Allies, but their experience were much lower than the English, Canadians or French.

---

Nor do I mean to disparage the courage of the average French or British soldier who was coldly thrown away by their incompetent high commands.

Quote:

---

Then if you want to claim that the US won the war would you be kind to explain me the collapse of Hungarian Austrian Empire, Bulgaria and others German Allies on battlefields where US troops never put a foot.
So, yes, the French and English would have done to Berlin as the German armies were in full retreat and the social Revolution having started.

---

Assuming you could've done so without American material support and the 2,000,000 American troops in Europe. Why did the war end without Entente forces ever reaching German soil? How could you have expected to achieve more if you had even less at your disposal?

Quote:

---

Ooohhh, so the French wanted to take back what was stolen to them and that was revanchism. I appreciate the “maybe”…
I am still amazed to see this attempt to put the blame on all participants when history show that there are 3 participants that had no choice as they were attacked: Serbia, Belgium and France. All the others had a choice.

---

That's what revanchism means. France didn't have to guarantee Russia's defense, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

The idea that the US brought anything meaningful to WWI is quite widespread among some americans. I've even seen many of them claim that the US won the war mostly by themselves.

The whole "France (and UK) sucks" thing has been so much blown out of proportion during the Bush era that it's barely surprising. Shameful but not surprising.

---

The French and British armies certainly didn't do a fantastic job, or we wouldn't be having the discussion about Germany doing all the fighting on French land and getting away with it.

Oooh....so much to say right now! It is late though. Tomorrow. Maybe*. In the meantime:



Do play nice. This is a controversial subject with very diverging opinions. Do try to keep it civil. ~:grouphug:


Also, I don't care what you scoundrels write about France, America or Germany, but this thread will be closed instantly if only one of you dares question that WWI was won by Texas. :furious3:



*Tomorrow, or, as has happened so often, maybe the all-important posts will never be made because they are the ones that require an hour of typing.

“Where did I bash the French in that?” in “I'm sure you'd have made it to Berlin - but I don't know about a victory parade.”

“We were selling the Entente way more weapons than we sold the Central Powers, far more than was appropriate for a supposedly neutral country.” Yeap, that is probably why the French and the English had to EQUIP the US Army in 1917 with modern material as planes and tanks.

“who was coldly thrown away by their incompetent high commands.” I give you this. However, the German High Command was as much incompetent.
Both of them failed to understand the impact of modern weapons and had still some Napoleon Area kind of set-up ignoring the lessons of the American Civil War and the 1870 war. Or the Boers…
Now, I don’t see the light of a supreme understanding of the new war in the US offensive in St Mihiel. The only one who understood the new challenges (from the Battle of Verdun) was the Canadian General Byng on the Vimy Ridge.

“Assuming you could've done so without American material support and the 2,000,000 American troops in Europe” What? The US Army succeeded to deploy 500,500 soldiers in France. Pershing got 300,000 for St Mihiel offensive and 110,000 French supported them.
In the last push the US participation is not so much numerically important.

“Why did the war end without Entente forces ever reaching German soil?” Easy. The German Collapse was total, so in order to pretend it was not, the Generals sent a Civilian to seek Peace, nothing to do with a possible fight back. Germany had no other choice.

How could you have expected to achieve more if you had even less at your disposal?
The problem is you failed to understand that Germany was defeated BEFORE the US entered in war, thanks to the Royal Navy.
The US in war was just the drop in the glass that broke all possible illusion in the German Side. They didn’t win, but they were hoping at least to be able to contain the Allies Advance.
Having broken the Hidenburg Line, the Allies didn’t stop, and the list of the German defeats is quite significant.
When the German signed the Armistice the Allies are on the verge to cross the border, and nothing was there to stop them to do so (French were in Sedan). And by the way, Alsace Lorraine was at this time German so the Allies were de facto on German (stolen) land…

“That's what revanchism means.” No. Revanchism is what the “humiliated” German did after WW1.

“ France didn't have to guarantee Russia's defense, either”: Why not? Defensive treaties, like NATO are defensive alliances and allegedly Peace guarantee…
Let face the fact: Without Austria attacking Serbia, the Russian wouldn’t have to attack. Without Germany attacking Belgium, the British wouldn’t have to go to war. Without German attack on France, Germany wouldn’t have lost a war.

“The French and British armies certainly didn't do a fantastic job, or we wouldn't be having the discussion about Germany doing all the fighting on French land and getting away with it.”
Well, they did a better job than the Germans and the Austrian as they won the war.
Without the breach of Belgium neutrality, the German would have to face the French Offensive without the possibility to cut the French Armies from the flanks.
Again, if the German were so good how they didn’t take Paris, why did they lost in Verdun, La Marne, Somme and all the major battles, then lost the war.
They had better material, were better trained, they should have crush the Belgium, French and English. And they didn’t.

They get away with it because the French were too nice… If the French would had just reverse the German Plan in case of victory, WW2 would never had happened…
You have probably noticed than none of the German plans did properly worked out on the Western Front

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The US brought, to both world wars, an untouchable industrial base and fresh meat. Strategically, the US let Germany, France, and the UK bleed themselves white before jumping on board to tip the war the Allies way. Pretty smart, really, but not a nice way to treat your so-called friends.

The whole "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" thing comes from Americans that haven't seen the French casualty numbers, or read about Verdun. We haven't had the pleasure of hosting our own war since 1865, so the joys of local industrialized warfare are lost on us.

---

Mostly agreeing here. I'm not trying to belittle the american army, but the whole "French aren't capable of fighting" meme is kind of tiring. Not only for WWI but also for WWII. Though the country surrendered, the army, or let's say, the men fought bravely. The daily losses were as high in may 1940 as during the immediate post-Operation Overlord weeks.
I've grown used to it, but it still tickles me every once in a while. Though I don't even think that's what AtPG meant or implied anyway.

Quote:

---

The French and British armies certainly didn't do a fantastic job, or we wouldn't be having the discussion about Germany doing all the fighting on French land and getting away with it.

---

No, the allied armies didn't do a fantastic job, far from it. I don't consider sending thousands of 22 years old guys to their death to take a hill of mud "a fantastic job".
But then, the germans really didn't fare better. Their only master achievement was the Schlieffen plan, and even then, it failed partly. Then, being 40km away from Paris, the germans retreated/were pushed back to eastern France, where both armies dug themselves. Talk about an achievement...

In any case, regardless of how well each army did (and I think they were all led by equally incompetent people), by mid-1917, the outcome of the war was decided mostly. Germany knew it had to win a decisive victory to force the allies out of the war, and repeatedly failed to score such a victory. And while the allies were slowly gathering their force, the average german civilian was starving or sent to the front even though being unfit for fighting. Germany was drained, exhausted, and knew it.

Germany lost the war when it lost the first battle of the Marne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Strategically, the US let Germany, France, and the UK bleed themselves white before jumping on board to tip the war the Allies way. Pretty smart, really, but not a nice way to treat your so-called friends.

---

You've lost me there, Drone. America did not consider France and Brittan friends at that time. We considered WWI as one more struggle in the endless European power struggles and not our business any more than France and Brittan had considered the American Civil War their business. Even when we did join the war, we did so as an associated power, not as a full ally. In hindsight, two world wars and a cold war have proven us wrong. But at the time we did not think that we had or were going to have any special relationship with the UK or France. Or am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“France was very eager for war itself, esprit de revanche and all.”
Yeap. France was waiting for it, and Wilhelm in giving Austria a support not intended in their Alliance (that was only defensive) offered the revanche on a silver (bloody) plate paying high price for it.
However France didn’t attack Germany.
And I always find funny that the French are pointed out for their inadmissible Esprit de Revanche when the poor German Post WW1 and Pre WW2, having been humiliated by a defeat were entitled to seek revenge.
Bad French…

---

There is no need to be defensive. I was not stating an opinion on the French, only highlighting the fact that France was eager for war to settle old scores. For the record I see France and Germany in very similar positions. Elements in the hierarchies of both nations pushed for war, but neither actually caused it; and, in fact, Wilhelm of Germany went to the farthest lengths to stop it.

“Their only master achievement was the Schlieffen plan, and even then, it failed partly” So it failed. Failure is like been pregnant. Can’t be half pregnancy…

“There is no need to be defensive.” Well, yes and no. Revanchism pre-WW1 is put on the French as a reason to minor Austria-Hungarian and German responsibilities in the start of the war and seen as almost equal than to declare war. The French were waiting for it is almost like they did nothing to prevent it in showing a good will to an aggressive Germany.
The funny thing is the completed reverse argument is used in Blaming The French concerning Munich and why the French didn’t reoccupied the Sarres or had a pre-emptive attack on Germany…
On the other hand, the Humiliation felt by the Germans due to Versailles is always presented as a good reason (or a least a understandable reason) why the German voted for M. Hitler (and against the Red).
So the French are guilty because they wanted to take revenge on a really Harsh Treaty that carved part of French Territory to Germany, obliged to pay a huge ransom to Germany, occupation of the French Territory paid with French Money, parade of the German Troops in French Capital, all this during civil unrest and Political Changes, but the Germans who had half of this are more right to feel humiliated…

So, I am a little tired of this amnesia and all attempts to do as is WW1 was independent of 1870, as WW2 is link with WW1.

Germany very much sought to overthrow the European order. Germany was very well aware of its role in starting WWI, and therefore ran a methodical campaign to re-write history, starting directly once it became clear Germany had lost the war.

In one of the century's most effective propaganda campaigns, the German government systematically distorted the historical record about Germany's role in the coming of WWI, coerced German historians, and enticed American historians to take the German side.

Holger Herwig, 'Clio deceived': http://www.jstor.org/stable/2538811:

Quote:

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This article will trace the genesis and course of the official campaign in the Weimar Republic (and beyond) to counter Allied charges of German war guilt (Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles), and offer some suggestions concerning its impact upon subsequent German affairs. The inquiry will show that the German government as early as 1914, and especially during the period from November 1918 to June 1919, sought to "organize" materials in order to answer questions concerning the origins of the war.

Further, it will show that from June 1919 through the Third Reich, key elements of the German bureaucracy mounted a massive and successful campaign of disin- formation that purveyed false propaganda through a wide range of channels. These included the War Guilt Section (Kriegsschuldreferat) of the Foreign Min- istry, which disseminated its official stance on war guilt most notably through two agencies which it recruited to this end-the Working Committee of German Associations (Arbeitsausschuss Deutscher Verbiinde) and the Center for the Study of the Causes of the War (Zentralstelle zur Erforschung der Kriegs- schuldfrage)-as well as a parliamentary Committee of Enquiry (Untersuchung- sausschuss). Writers were also engaged either directly or indirectly by the Foreign Ministry to propagate its views, to organize translations of foreign studies sympathetic to the German cause, and to channel the Wilhelm- strasse's official line to German schools and diplomatic missions via news- papers and radio.

Finally, some comments will be directed toward several important memoirs which were either "ordered" by patriotic editors or watered down in their final published versions in an attempt to preserve a national-conservative version of history.

By selectively editing documentary collections, suppressing honest scholarship, subsidizing pseudo-scholarship, underwriting mass propaganda, and overseeing the export of this propaganda especially to Britain, France, and the United States, the patriotic self-censors in Berlin exerted a powerful influence on public and elite opinion in Germany and, to a lesser extent, outside Germany. Their efforts polluted historical understanding both at home and abroad well into the post-1945 period.

---

German governments thought that much of the peace settlement would hinge on Germany's responsibility for starting the war. (Which is somewhat true but also not, but let's not digress).
Therefore a program of large scale destruction of documents was started directly following the armistice. Propaganda, coercion, censorship - all means were used to convince the allied victors of German innocence, and to whip the domestic population into a nationalist frenzy.
The effects still reverberate in popular history and the works of many a lazy historian, who (often unknowingly) repeat a German conservative-nationalist narrative, mostly against facts and modern analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So the French are guilty because they wanted to take revenge on a really Harsh Treaty that carved part of French Territory to Germany, obliged to pay a huge ransom to Germany, occupation of the French Territory paid with French Money, parade of the German Troops in French Capital, all this during civil unrest and Political Changes, but the Germans who had half of this are more right to feel humiliated.

---

An excellent observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

No, the allied armies didn't do a fantastic job, far from it. I don't consider sending thousands of 22 years old guys to their death to take a hill of mud "a fantastic job".
But then, the germans really didn't fare better. Their only master achievement was the Schlieffen plan, and even then, it failed partly. Then, being 40km away from Paris, the germans retreated/were pushed back to eastern France, where both armies dug themselves. Talk about an achievement...

In any case, regardless of how well each army did (and I think they were all led by equally incompetent people), by mid-1917, the outcome of the war was decided mostly. Germany knew it had to win a decisive victory to force the allies out of the war, and repeatedly failed to score such a victory. And while the allies were slowly gathering their force, the average german civilian was starving or sent to the front even though being unfit for fighting. Germany was drained, exhausted, and knew it.

Germany lost the war when it lost the first battle of the Marne.

---

Though shouldn't Germany at least get some credit for at least being instrumental in taking out Russia on top of the western front and aiding Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans? And unlike the British and French, it had a fairly small colonial empire to help out, almost all being captured except for German East Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Though shouldn't Germany at least get some credit for at least being instrumental in taking out Russia on top of the western front and aiding Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans? And unlike the British and French, it had a fairly small colonial empire to help out, almost all being captured except for German East Africa.

---

Germany demonstrated - by far - the best military performance of the war. The Schlieffen plan was relatively innovative and very nearly successful (inflicting 230,000 more casualties on the Allies than the Germans took and coming dangerously close to Paris), but their ability to quickly shift strategic focus was really impressive, especially by the standards of the time. The original plan called for Germany to deal with France and Britain while Austria dealt with Russia. At the end of 1914, Schlieffen had failed and Austria was in complete retreat in the face of the Russians. Germany was able to rebound, stabilize the Eastern front, and push the Russians back, all the while holding defensive positions in France. During this time, as the complete incompetence of both the Austrian and Ottoman military leadership became apparent, Germany began a complete overhaul of both; so much so that by 1915 Germany effectively controlled both nation's militaries. The Turkish victory at Gallipoli was led by a German commander, and when the Italian front opened, it was German leadership that held the line and then German stormtroopers that achieve the amazingly lopsided victory at Caporetto that ended the southern threat to the Central Powers. While reorganizing their Allies' militaries, Germany also found time to defeat Russia outright and launch several major offensives on the Western Front. Finally in 1918, Germany was able to completely reorganize its own forces, adopt the new 'stormtroop' tactics, and launch the most innovative offensive of the war, which, despite their smaller numbers, American troops did play an important part in stopping. By the end of the war the German military had inflicted millions more casualties than it took on the Allies, propped up two failing Allies, defeated the numerically superior Russian Empire, advanced military thinking considerably, and was essentially fighting the war all by itself. I'd say they did pretty well.

That is a point of view.

Mine is despite a tactical surprise of the invasion of a neutral country, a better preparation and a fully prepared Army, Germany failed miserably to implement an unrealistic plan based on nothing real (as the human factor). By a stupefying manoeuvre, the German present their flank to the French that succeeded to recover from the unexpected treachery. Regrouped, using at the maximum the new technologies at disposal, especially recon Airplanes but as well cars (taxi de la Marne) and railways network, the French were able to out manoeuvre the German, inflicting a stop to an offensive seemingly unstoppable…
The French Amy was built for the offensive but had to dig-in for the trenches. Faced to gas attacks, massive bombardment, and storm troopers not only they hold but won the war.
The German victory in the Eastern Front was not due to a particular German prowess but to the Russian inability and incompetence of the Tsar and his HQ.
I will not comment on the success of the German in Turkey as the Campaign in Mesopotamia and the English successes talk for themselves.

Unfortunately, the reality is as the German strategy and tactics are concerned, all failed.
In 1918 the storm-troops had their equivalent in the French Oriental Front (Macedonia, Serbia) as illustrated by the movie Capitaine Conan (and that is his real name).
The German failed to understand the importance of the tanks and even never really produce one when on the French side the production of the Renault with a rotating turret was massive…

At the end of the war Germany avoided massive casualties in surrendering on time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Unfortunately, the reality is as the German strategy and tactics are concerned, all failed.

---

Yes, against 3.5 major powers (the US was supplying the Allies long before it entered the war), Germany did lose the war.

I think you are looking at the conflict from a very Western perspective. There was a lot more going on than the Western Front for the Germans. Your post barely mentions Russia, which made the largest territorial gains of any of the Allies, and the only significant ones into Germany. They were certainly not up to German military standards, but they did have numbers behind them, and of course an alliance with two of the best militaries in the world. More importantly, they had the Austrians in full retreat, which fundamentally changed the Central Powers' grand strategy, and it is pretty impressive that Germany was able to rebound, defeat the Russians in the East, push back the Italians in the South, and keep the Ottoman Empire in the fight via von Sanders' headquarters, while simultaneously fighting France and Britain in the West.

My post did not preclude French skill, ingenuity, and bravery (although yours seems to leave out that of the British who fought alongside ~;)). Unlike the French, or any other major power in the world, the Germans were the only to have to fight on two major fronts, 2.5 with the addition of the Italian Frontier. Poor diplomacy, but very impressive military performance if you ask me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Yeap. France was waiting for it, and Wilhelm in giving Austria a support not intended in their Alliance (that was only defensive) offered the revanche on a silver (bloody) plate paying high price for it.
However France didn't attack Germany.

---

Well, the other option was to just do nothing, in which case France would have actually attacked Germany (they more or less said so themselves), let's just assume Germany had then lost to France, would France have paid Germany reparations for lodging artillery shells into german ground?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And I always find funny that the French are pointed out for their inadmissible Esprit de Revanche when the poor German Post WW1 and Pre WW2, having been humiliated by a defeat were entitled to seek revenge.

---

I haven't seen anyone here who said the germans were entitled to seek revenge after WW1. They just thought they were.

And Louis, despite your posts being full of propaganda, there were several ways for France and Belgium to prevent having artillery shells sticking in the ground everywhere:

1. do not resist the Schlieffenplan, there would have been a lot less need to fire artillery shells if France hadn't resisted
2. take the fight into Germany, it's not Germany's fault that you didn't manage to do that
3. don't threaten Germany with an invasion if they fight Russia, of course that would require not to be in a defensive alliance with russia or to break the existing one, but then that alliance only existed so you could entangle Germany from two sides, too bad the russians gave up and the germans attacked first

“Yes, against 3.5 major powers” That is not the point.
The point is Schliefen Plan didn’t work. It stated well, French started to attacke in Alsace, their Armies were attracted within what was a German Territory, the attack of Neutral Belgium and it success made the flanks of these army vulnerable and the German started to enter deeply in France with intention to encircle these armies cut their supplies, to take Paris and to force France to submission. Just as a note, for some who complain about Versailles, just have a look what was the Peace Treaty that should have been enforced by the German in case of victory…
But, the French (and Allies) succeeded to escape from the encirclement. They kept their line of communication.
Exhausted by day of walking and hard combat, the German Soldier couldn’t just walk fast enough to implement the Plan and that why I qualify this Plan as ill conceived. It was not possible to do and show a lack of understanding by the German HQ of the war at that time.
This is the Blitzkrieg.
Then, the German faced a better tactician. The French General Galieni taking advantage of the railway network around Paris moved his divisions and exploited the new movement of the German. French Air-Reconnaissance had detected the new direction that the German HQ, finally recognising their troops couldn’t walk so much, try to cut the British from the sea.
This left German Flanks opened and using the now famous Taxi de la Marne to transport the troops arriving in French Railways Stations to the Front he counter-attack and push back the German putting Paris out of reach from German Attacks.

I really don’t understand how the German start in the Western Front can be considered as genius. It went to failure to failure, no objectives succeeded even if due to a first initial success due to the surprise attack on Belgium, it looked like it would work. But then, it didn’t. The French were not defeated, the British were still able to deploy full divisions through the channel, Paris (main Railway Centre) was not taken, and the German had taken a major defeat at the end of it.
Then, as we know, all German offensive failed or had little success. Then the German HQ designed Verdun, which will be as costly for them than for the French and they lost the Battle. The fact that it was not intention to take Verdun but to bleed to death the French Army was lost as you can really explain to your soldiers and your country that the plan is not to take enemy territory so, err, soldiers have to be sacrificed in order to the enemy to sacrifice his…
So, against the German intention, Verdun became a symbol (first failure) and they lost the battle (second failure).
Have to go to work, will address other points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, the other option was to just do nothing, in which case France would have actually attacked Germany (they more or less said so themselves), let's just assume Germany had then lost to France, would France have paid Germany reparations for lodging artillery shells into german ground?

---

No, this is not a correct analogy. Correct is '...let's just assume France had lost to Germany'.

I think I can safely assume that in this corrected analogy, you'd agree France should share some of the costs for reparation of civil damages. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I haven't seen anyone here who said the germans were entitled to seek revenge after WW1. They just thought they were.

---

It is not about being entitled or not. A country is in general entitled to wage war. Germany was entitled to wage war in 1914. Germany was entitled to wage war in 1939.

The point of contention is: what was the cause for Germany's simmering longing to start the war all over again?
Was it a) the fault of Jews, Bolshevists, western democracies, Versailles, internal enemies? Or b) German nationalist-conservative agitation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And Louis, despite your posts being full of propaganda, there were several ways for France and Belgium to prevent having artillery shells sticking in the ground everywhere:

2. take the fight into Germany, it's not Germany's fault that you didn't manage to do that

---

Perennial 'Stab in the Back' nonsense.

France did not take the fight into Germany because France couldn't manage, or because Germany somehow managed to resist that, but because France was an enlightened democracy. We had defeated Germany, there was no need to prolong the agony for Germany.
The German high command had come to France and pleaded France to accept German defeat. Magnanimously, France had accepted.

Why did France accept rather than carry on? Because the French delegation were gentlemen. So Germany was offered that France would abstain from seeking satisfcation herself if Germany would provide it for France. That is to return the loot and repay civil damages. To this the Prussians happily agreed. The Prussian military caste however, as always, showed themselves to be anything but gentlemen. The word of the Prussian, as always, was worth nothing. France had been had.

However, the next war the German military caste plunged Germany in, Germany did not lose to gentlemen. This time, Germany lost to Russians and Americans. The results were mass rape, forced labour, massive territorial losses, millions of refugees, burned cities, plunder, indemnities for decades, a dictatorship imposed.

Makes one wish all wars were lost to France. :yes:

As to the debate about military performance, this must be judged within the strategic framework.

Limiting that to the German performance, I think the conclusion is the German military failed in its most important task.

Germany's strategy was to force a decisive breakthrough on the Western Front before the triple whammy of US involvement, British victories outside Europe, and the effects of a prolonged war of attrition would make their weight felt. The combination of these would spell inevitable defeat for Germany.
The German army failed in this task. The steamtrain was stopped right in its tracks in the Northern French mud. Like a charging bull running into a wall of solid concrete. :knight:

As irony would have it, but through no coincidence at all, the second war was a mirror image. This time, Germany managed a win in the west then failed a decisive breakthrough in the east on time.


One must regard performances in this light. It is costly, in territorial space, destruction, and in human blood, to stop a charging German army in its tracks. This is what France did in WWI, and Russia in WWII. However, if you can hold it up, behind the frontline Germany will rot sooner than you do. France and Russia, once they managed to hold on, could've held on forever. At least long enough to be certain of victory. Whether this strategy means 100k less Germans die than of your own, is of no importance. Certainly, it is little reason to think Germany despite suffering devastating defeat somehow performed better because they killed more of their opponents than were killed of theirs. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the strategic objects of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, this is not a correct analogy. Correct is '...let's just assume France had lost to Germany'.


I think I can safely assume that in this corrected analogy, you'd agree France should share some of the costs for reparation of civil damages. :book:

---

No, we should have kept it, renamed us to Frankish empire, revived the Karolingian dynasty and let everyone share the reparation costs. Sadly though, noone ever listens to me so now we have the smelly english and countless other nations on board in our empire project. ~;)
Germany simply conducted a preemptive strike, which was to be expected after threatening it with an attack, the USA says preemptive stikes are okay, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Why did France accept rather than carry on? Because the French delegation were gentlemen. So Germany was offered that France would abstain from seeking satisfcation herself if Germany would provide it for France. That is to return the loot and repay civil damages. To this the Prussians happily agreed. The Prussian military caste however, as always, showed themselves to be anything but gentlemen. The word of the Prussian, as always, was worth nothing. France had been had.

However, the next war the German military caste plunged Germany in, Germany did not lose to gentlemen. This time, Germany lost to Russians and Americans. The results were mass rape, forced labour, massive territorial losses, millions of refugees, burned cities, plunder, indemnities for decades, a dictatorship imposed.

Makes one wish all wars were lost to France. :yes:

---

Bolded for the lulz

You take France's decison to not prolong the war which was probably made due strategic thinking more than some odd notion of being gentlemanly and combine it with the end of WWII in which Europe was unfortunatley used as a carving board for two much greater powers to set up there own war.

Then you take this line of reasoning and claim Germany should be estatic that France in her infinite republican wisdom spared Germany from an onsluaght which you and I both know the French people didn't have the stomach for after 4 years nor did the French military have the men or material for.

I have seen some Bull in my time but this may take the cake.

:love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Bolded for the lulz

You take France's decison to not prolong the war which was probably made due strategic thinking more than some odd notion of being gentlemanly and combine it with the end of WWII in which Europe was unfortunatley used as a carving board for two much greater powers to set up there own war.

Then you take this line of reasoning and claim Germany should be estatic that France in her infinite republican wisdom spared Germany from an onsluaght which you and I both know the French people didn't have the stomach for after 4 years nor did the French military have the men or material for.

I have seen some Bull in my time but this may take the cake.

:love:

---

Well, if not out of gentlemanlyness, if France did not retaliate or invade Germany it wasn't so much because of a lack of troops or war fatigue, but for the two aims of post-war support of America, and to prevent German collapse. The war aims France had come to accept had been fullfilled: the restoration of everything Germany had destroyed, and the return of Alsace. Once Germany had accepted defeat on both conditions, there was no need to press on. For, France, and this is the gentlemanly bit, did not seek revenge, nor German collapse, nor profit.


For lack of gentlemanlyness, see: Russian advance into Germany 1945, or 'any German retreat or advance in either world war'. The German troops during their retreat in 1918 plundered what they could carry, and destroyed everything else.
For such is the duplicity of that most dishonourable of European military castes, the Prussians. They'll sit on a table across from you and in exchange for your accepting their defeat they promise full restitution of what they've stolen, while behind their back they send a telegramm to their retreating troops to quickly steal as much as they can carry.

French troops did not take their revenge, the French occupational troops did not plunder in retaliation. France, after either world war, did not treat the vanquished the way Germany and Russia did, in both wars.

So yes, I'll stick with the gentlemanly bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Well, if not out of gentlemanlyness, if France did not retaliate or invade Germany it wasn't so much because of a lack of troops or war fatigue, but for the two aims of post-war support of America, and to prevent German collapse. The war aims France had come to accept had been fullfilled: the restoration of everything Germany had destroyed, and the return of Alsace. Once Germany had accepted defeat on both conditions, there was no need to press on. For, France, and this is the gentlemanly bit, did not seek revenge, nor German collapse, nor profit.

---

So 4 years of war and fatiuge did not play a role? Millions of dead? You say in your own post that France had aims, do you not think these overode French altruism?

Quote:

---

For lack of gentlemanlyness, see: Russian advance into Germany 1945, or 'any German retreat or advance in either world war'. The German troops during their retreat in 1918 plundered what they could carry, and destroyed everything else.
For such is the duplicity of that most dishonourable of European military castes, the Prussians. They'll sit on a table across from you and in exchange for your accepting their defeat they promise full restitution of what they've stolen, while behind their back they send a telegramm to their retreating troops to quickly steal as much as they can carry.

---

Russia did not have any post war aims other than "Strengthen Russias postion against the US" There was no one to appease and there aims could be accomplished while still raping and stealing.

Such is the default of the conquerer is it not? To take what they have won?

I lack sufficent knoweldge on the Prussians to truly challenge your last point (Although I suspect hyperbole)

The French were Gentleman like the Americans were after WWII. They were because it suited them to be. Russia and Germany had no need for friends or allies in your examples France needed a stronger America to be on its side and America needed a rebuilt WEroupe to combat the soviets

Quote:

---

French troops did not take their revenge, the French occupational troops did not plunder in retaliation. France, after either world war, did not treat the vanquished the way Germany and Russia did, in both wars.

So yes, I'll stick with the gentlemanly bit.

---

ok

...

The air in this thread is thick with French nationalism and it seems to be overpowering fact and reason.

First of all, from reading this thread one almost feels that the French stood alone against the Germans. Let’s not forget the British, the most powerful country in the world. Not only was the BEF instrumental in stopping Schlieffen and contributing millions of men to the front over the course of the war, the British Navy was truly responsible for the German war exhaustion that sapped the nation’s will to fight. Also, while the Americans were not yet present in big numbers during the Spring Offensive, they were during the Hundred Days Offensive, which arguably could not have happened without them and certainly not without the British. The primary reasons for requesting armistice with the Allies were the internal strife caused by the British Navy and the knowledge that the Americans were delivering tens of thousands of fresh troops to Europe every month.

Second, The French did not continue into Germany because the US and British would not have followed. French forces were exhausted, beaten down, and mutinous, and likely would not have been able to maintain any type of offensive by themselves.

Finally, the only true gentlemen in either World War were the leaders of the United States. Fresh on the world scene, flush with power, and operating from an unassailable territory, they were in a position to be idealistic. Clemenceau fought tooth and nail during the Versailles negotiations to weaken Germany and Austria-Hungary against the better judgment of Woodrow Wilson. Further, French meddling in the Treaty of Trianon has caused decades of unspeakable suffering in the Balkans.

The French contribution to the war was great and should not be underestimated (which no one appears to have done), but the idea of a magnanimous France choosing not to continue into Germany and then graciously offering favorable peace terms is a joke. The notion disabuses itself of all fact and is an example of the worst kind of revisionism. The French did not continue into Germany because they could not, and at Versailles they fought for the harshest punishments possible, only to be thwarted to some extent by their more clear thinking American and British allies. And if you are one who believes that Article 231 and reparations had something to do with the rise of National Socialism, whether the effects were real or percieved, the French are squarely to blame.


@Louis re:French military performance... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nivelle_Offensive

French forces were exhausted, beaten down, and mutinous”
What? In 1918? That was the German troops.
“The air in this thread is thick with German nationalism and it seems to be overpowering fact and reason”

“the British Navy was truly responsible for the German war exhaustion” Partially true, however the war exhaustion came rom the succession of defeats in front of the French/English/Belgium/Portuguese etc lines.

“They were during the Hundred Days Offensive, which arguably could not have happened without them and certainly not without the British.”
Would have happen without the US certainly not without the English.
The US army presence on the battle field was important not as number but as reinsurance for the German they will face an endless number of reinforcement…

“The primary reasons for requesting armistice with the Allies” And the failure of the July 1918 offensive and the success of the French/English/Canadian and others offensives….

“likely would not have been able to maintain any type of offensive by themselves.” You having a laugh… The German Army wasn’t able to maintain a front line as it was in full retreat and had to face internal unrest.
The reason why the German Generals were so keen in asking the Allies Conditions is they feared a general mutiny from all the troops, like in Russia (and in the Fleet).
Can I remind you why the German Fleet mutinied? Because the sailors refused to be sacrificed for nothing in a war yet lost. The Generals considered that the risk of a rebellion in the Army for the same reason was a possibility.
The reason why the Allies (including the French) to accept to stop the offensive and leave the German Army to retreat in dignity and with weapons was the fear of a Red revolution…

“And if you are one who believes that Article 231 and reparations had something to do with the rise of National Socialism, whether the effects were real or perceived, the French are squarely to blame.”
Except of course that the German never paid the reparations but the French carry on nowadays to clean what is left of the German aggression in our fields. Without the treacherous attack against Belgium, the German wouldn’t have to face the UK, without war declaration upon France (due to stupid decision to support Austria in the pursuit of a war against Serbia) Germany wouldn’t have been defeated and wouldn’t had to give back stolen lands or pay anything.

The blame has to be put on the German Leaders, civilians and from the armed Forces who deliberately lied to their population to save their positions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

...

The air in this thread is thick with French nationalism and it seems to be overpowering fact and reason.

---

I'm french and I agree with this statement :( While France and UK could have invaded Germany after starving her to death, this would have cost thousand more deaths. Something the french (and probably british) public opinions wouldn't have swallowed. That being said, it's true that France (like UK) never treated occuped territories and people as badly as the germans did (in Europe that is). Even if we take into account the rampant propaganda made by the allies, the German army never really bothered about PoW's and civilians living in occupied territories.

Overall, I suspect Louis is voluntarily using hyperboles to debunk the whole "Germany had it hard after WWI" myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

lack sufficent knoweldge on the Prussians to truly challenge your last point (Although I suspect hyperbole)

---

Hyperbole? Quod non.

German propaganda has been so efficient that when people read a more realistic account they suspect hyperbole.

Once it became clear that Germany had lost the war, the Prussian command ordered a policy of scorched earth for the retreating German army. What could be carried had to be send to Germany, what couldn't was to be destroyed. The object was to strategically weaken the industrial heartland of France and Belgium, even with an eye in preparation for the next war. Simultaneously, the German military command ordered that the peace negotiation would have to agree with the condition that 'France and Belgium were to receive full restoration for all plundered goods and civil damages'. :wall:

Like the 'solemn promise' of Prussia that it would honour and protect the neutrality of Belgium, the word of the Prussian was all calculated deceit, promises never intended to be kept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

The French were Gentleman like the Americans were after WWII. They were because it suited them to be.

Russia and Germany

---

Yes, in the final balance, the historical record shows a very clear difference between the conduct of the democracies, and that of the autocracies.

But no, not because it suited them, but because of the nature of a democracy. The very philosophical foundation of democracy assigns a higher value to human life and dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The air in this thread is thick with French nationalism and it seems to be overpowering fact and reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Overall, I suspect Louis is voluntarily using hyperboles to debunk the whole "Germany had it hard after WWI" myth.

---

Meneldil is close.

What I agitate against, is a narrative that I consider fundamentally erroneous, and erroneous in a mannar that is grossly unfair on France. Something like this:

WWI started by encirclement, by revanchism, reckless alliances
France lost, saved by America
Germany did 'not really' lose the war
Despite that, duplicitous France abused temporary weakness of Germany
France had the harshest demands, the anglo powers moderate demands
France in this way responsible for German hardship, thus for outbreak of WWII
Which France lost again, again bailed out
Oh, and an invincible German Superarmy, that, despite twice losing a war as Europe's greatest power, massivley overachieved


Against all that, I protest. I started protesting when Brenus took offense one or two pages ago. Brenus described it as francophobia. I myself consider it more dangerous still: all of the above is stated so completely matter-of-factly, that even the francophile would unwitingly repeat it. That is why I brought out the sledgehammer, to bang away at it all. I know the big hammer irritates people more than that it convinces them, but it does aid two delighful purposes: 1, I get it all off my chest, and 2, uhm, there was a two but I don't remember it right now. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

Clemenceau fought tooth and nail during the Versailles negotiations to weaken Germany and Austria-Hungary against the better judgment of Woodrow Wilson.

---

No, this is not supported by modern scholarship. The French delegation, on the contrary, must be regarded as the most moderate of the three main allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes, in the final balance, the historical record shows a very clear difference between the conduct of the democracies, and that of the autocracies.

But no, not because it suited them, but because of the nature of a democracy. The very philosophical foundation of democracy assigns a higher value to human life and dignity.

---

Agreed but I do not think this is the intrisic vaule that spured the altruism.

America and France have acted with wanton disreagard for life and dignity many times in our histories.

To frame it so simply means one loses much of the context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Except of course that the German never paid the reparations

---

Germany paid roughly 20,000,000,000 marks, 1/8 of the sum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes, in the final balance, the historical record shows a very clear difference between the conduct of the democracies, and that of the autocracies.

But no, not because it suited them, but because of the nature of a democracy. The very philosophical foundation of democracy assigns a higher value to human life and dignity.

---

Yes, if you completely ignore Allied partitioning of Eastern Europe, particularly pushed by the French, it is possible to conjure up such a romantic view of democratic values.

Quote:

---

No, this is not supported by modern scholarship. The French delegation, on the contrary, must be regarded as the most moderate of the three main allies.

---

Unfortunately the modern scholarship I've seen you post in several threads in the past all too often confuses outcome with intent. It is relatively easy to form a cogent argument that Versailles and later treaties inadvertently left Germany in an advantageous position. It is much more difficult to form an argument that states that that was the intention of the French delegation, especially when reading primary sources from the negotiations.

In my opinion the treaty was a poor compromise. It left Germany powerful enough to pursue further aggression yet bitter enough to succumb to National Socialism. From the Allied perspective, Germany should have been broken back up into the states of the Confederation or wholly welcomed back into the world community without penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Germany paid roughly 20,000,000,000 marks, 1/8 of the sum.

---

A mere pittance. All the more so considering only about a third was paid in cash.
At any rate, much less than the 27 billion German received in recovery loans, which Germany happily defaulted on and never paid back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

a romantic view of democratic values.

---

In the final balance of the twentieth century, I value the democracies over the other systems that have been tried, yes. Call me a romantic.

The perennial failure of democracy to live up to its own humanitarian ideals does not make it the moral equivalent of those systems that deny those humanitarian ideals to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

Unfortunately the modern scholarship I've seen you post in several threads in the past all too often confuses outcome with intent. It is relatively easy to form a cogent argument that Versailles and later treaties inadvertently left Germany in an advantageous position. It is much more difficult to form an argument that states that that was the intention of the French delegation, especially when reading primary sources from the negotiations.

In my opinion the treaty was a poor compromise. It left Germany powerful enough to pursue further aggression yet bitter enough to succumb to National Socialism. From the Allied perspective, Germany should have been broken back up into the states of the Confederation or wholly welcomed back into the world community without penalty.

---

That's far too Taylor for me, I do not think his analysis that Germany was dealt either too harshly or too leniently is the most relevant.

Versailles indeed left Germany strengthened, and the victors weakened. France certainly did not intent this. However, this was not the necessary outcome, rather the result of the policies in the 1920's and 1930's.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Peace through law never materialised. International law and the League of Nations remained toothless.

Reconcilliation through cooperation never materialised. If one reads some of the objectives of France's post-war plans, one is struck with a mixture of awe and ridicule for the grandiose projects for economic reorganisation. I would deem all the plans bizarre and entirely unrealistic, were it not that I live in one, the EU. France's post-WWI policy was, albeit tentatively, not dissimilar to post-WWII. France sought French-German-Belgian economic co-operation. A pooling of resources would make war impossible. It failed in the 1920s - Germany was not interested. In the 1950s, it succeeded, and became the essence of post-war concilliation.

The Treaty of Guarantee never materialised. I for one follow MacMillan. The treaty's central element was that Germany would be left in an advantageous state, in exchange for which the peace would be secured by American involvement in Europe. But America never ratified. At this point, the entire treaty system was already dead, had become meaningless.
The European peace now had to be guaranteed by a France which was left ruined, destroyed, financially bankrupt, and which could never recover in time if Germany intended to use the peace as mere buying time for another war. Meanwhile Germany for its part escaped war destruction, interallied debt and the costs of reparations, and was kept in check only by its promise not to start it all over again.

Everybody failed everybody. The allies failed themselves in not securing the peace. The allies failed Germany in exposing it to nationalist agitation. For MacMillan, the main mistake was that defeat was not brought home to Germany. With the benefit of hindsight, indeed even a brief occupation of Germany, say some three years, would have prevented so much misery for the whole of Europe...

[/digressions]

As for the ancient Manichean 'Harsh France, idealistic US, realistic UK' - uh-uh, no way.

France was the most moderate of all three. Britain had the stiffest demands. Even Wilsonian idealism was 'harsher' than the realism of Clemenceau.

Primary sources can show anything. There are so many sources, expressing such conflicting aims and opinions, that one can ascribe any goal to any delegation and still base it all on primary sources. Much to the delight of partisan historiography. Analysis and a full record are what is needed.

All the smoke and mirrors of Versailles left the sources difficult to asses without a full reading and understanding of them. For example, France sometimes used enormous claims, unrealistic demands, for pr purposes, and to exert pressure on especially the US delegation. Privately however, and in actual aims and actual policy, French claims were very moderate and concilliatory. This difference escaped many a contemporary. Not surprising perhaps, because creating an impression of harsh terms was French policy - to delude the French public.
There is however no excuse for the historian, in the possesion of the full record, to be deluded. For decades, serious scholarship has been aware that the French delegation was the most moderate of all. Try for example Marc Trachtenberg:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1877867?...rviceName=null

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What I agitate against, is a narrative that I consider fundamentally erroneous, and erroneous in a mannar that is grossly unfair on France.

---

Historical revisionism has been extraordinarily succesful in blaming the democracies for the ills of the 1920's and 1930's.

This has been re-invigorated in the past decade. On the wave of francophobia popular anglo history, especially American history, eagerly embraced a German-nationalist narrative, substituing 'democracies' and 'Jews' for 'France'. Popular US history is now close to providing a simplified account of the 20's/30's that blames an irresponsible, avaricious France for plunging Germany into nazism, and thus for bearing ultimate rsponsibility for WWII.

Keylor's Legacy of the Great War goes a long way to present a different narrative:


Despite its shortcomings, the Versailles Treaty was potentially viable. But its successful implementation required wisdom and strength. Instead, divisions among the wartime allies, due at least as much to the United States and Great Britain as to France, augured ill for its survival.

What does Keylor’s anthology tell us about the victors? At the top of a pecking order of power, the Anglo-Saxon countries treated France shabbily, and their failure to honor their promises to France had long standing consequences. France’s enormous human losses and precarious economic and financial condition allowed its two allies to get away with this abdication of responsibility. Too often during the interwar years, the United States and Great Britain asked much of the French and offered too little or nothing in return. At Paris, both the United States and Great Britain first secured their own interests--naval security, trade, oil,--and then took the moral high ground in response to French demands for equal treatment.

The Treaty of Guarantee could have soothed French worries about security and provided a strong underpinning for Franco-German reconciliation--maybe even a peaceful revision of the Versailles Treaty before Hitler destroyed the postwar rules of the game. The lost Guarantee contributed significantly not only to the French catastrophe of May-June 1940, but to Great Britain’s lonely, desperate, heroic summer and fall of 1940. It also led to Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944. My students believe that the United States rescued France during World War II, which is partially true, but it is as accurate to say that the United States, by its failure to honor the Treaty of Guarantee and its absence in 1940, played a major role in making D-Day necessary. The Anglo-American misreading of power and the narrowness of their self-interestedness in 1919 and during the interwar years contributed as much as French policies to dooming the Versailles Treaty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

From the Allied perspective, Germany should have been broken back up into the states of the Confederation or wholly welcomed back into the world community without penalty.

---

Wasn't it Otto von Bismarck who said something along the lines of "If you're going to wage war with an enemy you should either make sure that they can save their face or that they won't rise again."?
Well, he was always a bit ahead of the French*. ~;)






*and arguably the german governments after him, too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Wasn't it Otto von Bismarck who said something along the lines of "If you're going to wage war with an enemy you should either make sure that they can save their face or that they won't rise again."?
Well, he was always a bit ahead of the French*. ~;)

*and arguably the german governments after him, too

---

No, contrary to German national-conservative narratives, the French in 1918 were not stupid.

In fact, France ensured both your options: Germany was spared and could save face, plus an alliance was forged in case Germany's post-war promises were as good as Germany's pre-war 'solemn promise' to guarantee Belgian neutrality.


Alas! Rather than save face Germany followed rabble-rousers in beer halls, who shouted that Germany had been stabbed in the back was now living in eternal slavery to Jews and foreigners and social-democrats. And as for the Treaty of Guarantee - well, Attlee never intended to keep his word, and Wilson couldn't convince congress to honour his.

In the end, everybody paid a heavy price, and it turned out France had been right all along. Still France tried to save democracy in 1940, as it had done the war before. Sadly, France, this time standing (nearly) all alone, lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No, contrary to German national-conservative narratives, the French in 1918 were not stupid.

In fact, France ensured both your options: Germany was spared and could save face, plus an alliance was forged in case Germany's post-war promises were as good as Germany's pre-war 'solemn promise' to guarantee Belgian neutrality.

---

Hint: When Bismarck made France pay a lot of money in 1871, he didn't have the "let them save face"-option in mind....
Alliances to keep Germany down alredy existed before 1914 so I don't see how that was some kind of novel idea, isolating a country or two also doesn't fit under the "let them save face"-option, quite the contrary...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hint: When Bismarck made France pay a lot of money in 1871, he didn't have the "let them save face"-option in mind....
Alliances to keep Germany down alredy existed before 1914 so I don't see how that was some kind of novel idea, isolating a country or two also doesn't fit under the "let them save face"-option, quite the contrary...

---

There was no alliance to keep Germany down, because Germany was not kept down at all. That belongs to a discourse that speaks of eternal slavery, of exploitation, of foreign parasites.
What it really says, is that anything that prevents superior Germany from taking its rightful place as master of the entire universe, is 'keeping Germany down'. And because it is of course impossible that the superior German army could not achieve global overlordship at will, other, more insidious forces must be at work. Evil Jews, avaricious foreigners, internal enemies. Conspiring to 'keep Germany down'.

It is all nonsense.


Countries lose wars all the time. Nothing special about it. There was nothing special about Germany losing. All European countries have lost wars by the dozen. Peace settlements afterwards, in which customarily the winner wins something and the loser loses something, are not the same as 'keeping a country down'.


In fact, far from anti-German, the western alliance was the very means to make it possible that Germany would not be kept down!
The central element of the Versailles Treaty was that Germany would be left intact as Europe's greatest power, while the western alliance would be continued. This made it possible that the security of the victors was guaranteed, while Germany's territorial integrity and self-determination could be secured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

There was no alliance to keep Germany down, because Germany was not kept down at all. That belongs to a discourse that speaks of eternal slavery, of exploitation, of foreign parasites.
What it really says, is that anything that prevents superior Germany from taking its rightful place as master of the entire universe, is 'keeping Germany down'. And because it is of course impossible that the superior German army could not achieve global overlordship at will, other, more insidious forces must be at work. Evil Jews, avaricious foreigners, internal enemies. Conspiring to 'keep Germany down'.

---

To keep Germany down indeed, because when Germany rose and started a war, the alliance kept us down, there is no Nazi propaganda in that, it was a defensive alliance to keep Germany where it was.
That does not imply that Germany had any right to rise and attack the other powers, Bismarck also made alliances to keep France down but saying that doesn't make it french nazi propaganda, or does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Wasn't it Otto von Bismarck who said something along the lines of "If you're going to wage war with an enemy you should either make sure that they can save their face or that they won't rise again."?
Well, he was always a bit ahead of the French*. ~;)

*and arguably the german governments after him, too

---

Or like Machiavelli with

"Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
Ch. 3; Variant translation: Never do an enemy a small injury."

You two tell tell it to the Romanian Jews, who humiliated Romania by throwing rocks at the retreating Romanian army in 1918, but who then didn't take control of Romania enough to keep it down forever.


Or some such I learned in another thread.