American congress get maid

[Kralizec]

I agree that attacking the Netherlands was rather unnecessary (given my current knowledge of the situation), but there is the possibility that it did save lives in the long run. Rotterdam was not the only city left for the Germans to take. Right from wiki:

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

And yeah, occupying the Neth's was pretty useless as far as I know. Belgium was on the way around the Maginot line, but I never figured out why Hitler thought that taking the Netherlands was necessary or even desirable. The nazi's loved to preach their nonsense about a pan-germanic master race, but that doesn't explain why they let the Swedes and the Swiss get away with their quasi-neutrality.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's correct- the Germans had threatened that they'd level Amsterdam, The Hague, Utrecht and possibly every last village until the Dutch surrendered. What's mindboggling is that you think a "Do yourself a favour and surrender, or else" strategy is somehow justified.

Not necessarily justified, but hey, the Americans did it.

Next thing you're going to argue that random executions are justified if they succeed in deterring would-be rebels.

Completely different story.

[Kralizec]

Okay, how are they different?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Okay, how are they different?

Namely the fact that it didn't succeed. Rotterdam, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki did.

[Kralizec]

I agree that we didn't start the war but the Kaiser gave Austria blanket support which meant he was basically asking for trouble. I mean if you want to prevent a war you don't go to your enraged ally and tell them "go ahead and do whatever you want, we'll be right behind you".
Pretty much everyone wanted the war and they all also happily jumped onto their trucks and trains prematurely celebrating their big victory, until they arrived at the actual front and got a dose of reality, or lead.

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

Well, at least the Italians had no problems weasling themselves out of their treaty obligations...or turning on their former allies, for that matter.

[Meneldil]

I don't get that whole "XXX started WWI, that's their fault !". Everyone was seeing it coming since the 1880's.
The whole debate about who mobilized first, who attacked first, who did this and that is pretty much pointless. Unlike WWII that could IMHO have been avoided by simply spanking Hitler when he started the troubles, WWI was the main aim of most european nations.

And lol @ Krook. He alone makes visiting this forum worth it.

[Kralizec]

It makes as much sense as violent criminals claiming bad youth as a reason for their behaviour. It might go a long way in explaining things, but not in excusing them.

[Husar]

You could likewise argue that the Czar was responsible because he refused to back down from supporting the Serbians.

Well yeah, my point was that pretty much everyone was responsible in a way, including the people of the respective countries who mostly supported their leaders with their blind nationalism.