Germany to complete WWI reparations at last.

[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.

“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.

[Sarmatian]

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

[Fragony]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

“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.

“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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[KrooK]

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.

[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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

“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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.


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.



*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.

[Brenus]

“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

[Meneldil]

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.

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.

[Noncommunist]

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.

[Brandy Blue]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

“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.

[Brenus]

“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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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:

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.

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.

[Husar]

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?

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

[Brenus]

“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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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?

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

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...

[Strike For The South]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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?

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

...

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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'.

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.

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.