Tommy Doesn't Know What Day It Is

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nobody takes note because all of the above is untrue.

Rather than crush the routed German army, and push deep into Germany, the allies accepted Germany's plea for peace. The allies thus spared Germany from having to undergo what Germany itself had done to Europe.

Because naturally, Germany was guilty for World War One.

After the armistice, the retreating German army plundered and destructed on an enormous scale, wantonly destroying property. It returned home with victory parades, under improvised triumphal arches.

This isn't true. I won't comment on the "destruction" for now, but only von Lettow-Vorbeck was allowed an actual triumphal parade, and that was because he was the only one who actually was victorious.

Then rather than aiming for peace, Germany abused the good will of its victors by spending the next twenty years undermining the peace and preparing for another war, starting it all over again.

Germany abused the terms of the treaty, but not goodwill. This is because whatever "goodwill" the victors had certainly didn't make it into the treaty. The terms of Versailles were harsh, and based on a presumption that wasn't true, at least not entirely. If you say that Germany got off lightly, you are basing your argument on precisely the same flaws.

Sixty million deaths later, it had finally sunk into the German nationalists that the combined forces of the civilised nations are stronger.

I've never known you to troll before.

wut

More power blocs, an upset in the balance of power, a potential civil war, I could go on. I don't think Fragony is using the best analogy, I'd prefer to use the collapse of a more recent empire.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Because naturally, Germany was guilty for World War One.

For once I side with EMFM. Louis may have French bias, and EFMF his German bias, as both are nationals of the respective countries, but Louis is a tad too aggressive in his statements. Oh well, Louis was never a moderate, and all his posts are bold exaggerations and generalizations – usually wittier than anything we can hope to match, and sometimes correct, but many times they hold easily discernable flaws. A moderate position is always a safe and usually the most correct one in a typical argument IMO.

Moving on, Germany is not to be demonized for its role in WWI as Louis advocates. There are numerous countries to blame. Wilhelm II may have had his youthful, foolish ambitions of German dominance, and his actions have certainly contributed to the start of the war (especially his neglect of the Bismark-era skillful diplomacy of alliances and pacts), but there are pages of other arguments. For instance, Russia’s mobilisation was the deciding factor in the actual beginning of the war. Russia could have chosen not to proceed, and let Austria pummel Serbia, but once it started, there was no way back. Germany was obligated to do the same as an ally of Austria. Gavrilo Princip armed the bomb, Austria directly prepared the fuse for the war, and Russia lighted the spark with its mobilisation.

However, Serbia was in the scope of Russia’s interests. Abandoning it and losing influence in the Balkans was inacceptable, not at least because it would drastically upset the balance of power. Not to mention, Serbs are Slavs, of our kin. Nowadays such petty pan-nationalist ideals are a thing of the past, but back then it was a major influence.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Bankrupting germany with reparations was one of the main things leading to WWII. They couldn't pay, so we lent them money which they payed to the british, who used it to pay back loans they owed us if I remember it right. I don't remember how it fell apart exactly or how it was tied to the great depression.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bankrupting germany with reparations was one of the main things leading to WWII. They couldn't pay, so we lent them money which they payed to the british, who used it to pay back loans they owed us if I remember it right. I don't remember how it fell apart exactly or how it was tied to the great depression.

Germany wasn't bankrupted because of reparations. (Neither were France or Belgium, even though both payed the lion's share of reparations - some 95% to Germany's 5%)

Germany was perfectly capable of paying. And it could borrow all the money it needed. Contrary to lingering propaganda, Versailles didn't seek nor resulted in a crippled Germany. It wanted a viable, functioning Germany.

The runaway inflation of the early twenties was caused by German policians in a deliberate bid to undermine the Versailles system, not because it couldn't pay or had to pay so much.

After this policy of deliberate inflation was ended, Germany enjoyed enormous economical growth again. The very small sum Germany had to pay (could borrow) was no impediment to affluence and growth whatsoever.

Versailles nor the reparations were tied to the Great Depression. This was an international phenomenon.

Germany was not required to pay anything since before Hitler gained power, in 1932.

After Germany had started WWII, Germany was condemned to pay the reparations for WWI after all. They will finish paying in 2020.



Maniac - nope, everything in my post is quite correct. History, as they say, is a matter of interpretation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maniac - nope, everything in my post is quite correct. History, as they say, is a matter of interpretation.

History is a matter of interpretation, yes, but when you're talking about the treaty when it is quite clearly readable and available it would be good to have it coalesce with what you are saying.

[Beskar]

Most of what Louis says at first glance seems right from my own studies of WWI. Will need to read all the thread to see where the main disagreement is though.

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

WWII was Germany's fault though, even though it could be argued that the 2nd war is a continuation of the first in many respects.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

Well, I was not really discussing the origins of WWI, but rather those of WWII.

As to the origin of WWI. The direct origins of WWI are so complex that they do not really arouse much passion or public sentiment. More for the lovers of high diplomacy. I would say Germany is most directly responsible. With the caveat that all belligerents take a large share of the responsibility - so much so that 'blaming' Germany as the most directly responsible loses much political significance and all moral meaning.

For a more ulterior context of the origins of WWI, Blackadder said it best: 'The British [and French] empire stretches across a third of the globe. Meanwhile, the German empire consists of a single sausage factory in Tanganyika'.
No moral highground for the Imperialist powers there.

Let's not just focus on the generals and governments. Public sentiment craved for war, jingoism and revanchism was rampant. Nationalism was at its peak. Art and literature glorified war, artists rushed to the trenches (see: Hitler). Industry embraced the thought of war. Freudians sexualized war as a pseudo-homosexual orgy, of young men embracing each other in physical struggle. War was aestethically appreciated, politically thought of as a fresh wind. To die for the fatherland was the highest a man could achieve in life. Even the nominally internationalist socialists fell for the trap.
Gah! It shouldn't have happened. It was so needless and fruitless!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

Yes, but it is his other assertions about the Treaty which I disagree with, which I believe Husar and myself provided an argument against using direct quotes from the Treaty itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Germany wasn't bankrupted because of reparations. (Neither were France or Belgium, even though both payed the lion's share of reparations - some 95% to Germany's 5%)

Well, I admit I know very little about it (high school history). I think the amount was such that germany couldn't pay it off till 1990 or something? We didn't try and make them pay reparations after WWII anyway. I think we had some act that pumped money in to revitalize the economy.

But yours is a perspective I hadn't heard before, interesting.

[Beskar]

Well, I admit I know very little about it (high school history). I think the amount was such that germany couldn't pay it off till 1990 or something? We didn't try and make them pay reparations after WWII anyway. I think we had some act that pumped money in to revitalize the economy.

But yours is a perspective I hadn't heard before, interesting.

I think German reparations were only 2% of the German GDP (or 2% of German income). Arguably, some say it is a lot, bearing in mind it does limit the potential of the economy (American loans resolved this, before the depression.) However, there is the argument that it is only 2%.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Moving on, Germany is not to be demonized for its role in WWI as Louis advocates. There are numerous countries to blame. Wilhelm II may have had his youthful, foolish ambitions of German dominance, and his actions have certainly contributed to the start of the war (especially his neglect of the Bismark-era skillful diplomacy of alliances and pacts), but there are pages of other arguments. For instance, Russia’s mobilisation was the deciding factor in the actual beginning of the war. Russia could have chosen not to proceed, and let Austria pummel Serbia, but once it started, there was no way back. Germany was obligated to do the same as an ally of Austria. Gavrilo Princip armed the bomb, Austria directly prepared the fuse for the war, and Russia lighted the spark with its mobilisation.

However, Serbia was in the scope of Russia’s interests. Abandoning it and losing influence in the Balkans was inacceptable, not at least because it would drastically upset the balance of power. Not to mention, Serbs are Slavs, of our kin. Nowadays such petty pan-nationalist ideals are a thing of the past, but back then it was a major influence.

Not only blaming Russia, but France also had a role in these mobilizations that Germany looked on nervously. Ironic, since Louis happens to be French. Or perhaps that is why he takes this attitude, who knows.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Because naturally, Germany was guilty for World War One.

It is not about guilt (but yes, Germany was the most guilty, and no, the Treaty of Versailles did not lay the blame at Germany), it is about losing.

Germany lost. Rather than bleeding it completely dry, or to take revenge, Germany was magnanimously granted the peace it sought. This peace offered the best conditions a losing side has had in Europe in centuries. All it asked was for Germany to become a democracy, to pick up its share of the civilian damages (roughly five percent), and please not start another war.

(What, I wonder, would they have deemed fair? The victorious allies paying for all of the civilian damages of the war on their own? The war wasn't fought on German soil, so the civilian damages were on the allied side. Germany was only asked to pay a small percentage towards reconstruction, while the allies payed the lion's share.
Plus they'd have wanted to let the losing Germans their army fully intact and operational, ready to strike once it had regained full strenght in a year or two? While the allies must spend their time and resources repairing civilian damages, and the Americans and Commonwealth troops return home?
This is preposterous. These two are some of the fundamental flaws in the interpretation of Versailles as needlessly harsh)

No, what happened is that German nationalists could not stomach defeat. This is the origin of WWII. Twenty million deaths, and all they could think about was starting it all over again. Stubbornly expecting a different outcome this time.

And this, sixty million deaths to try one's luck once more, I do not consider an act of civilization. Call it trolling, call it being a tad too agressive, I call it putting the blame back where it belongs.


(AP - I am not demonizing Germany's role in WWI. A silly war that should not have been reprised twenty years later all over again. I am talking about the origin of WWII. Demonizing, or rather, putting the blame for WWII, fair and square on German nationalists. Unfortunately, they whinged and cried so much ever since 1918, increasingly so since 1933, and renewed since the internets, that many people forget that Germany was not the victim of Jews, Bolshevists, Versailles, France or Octosquids, but was the agressor)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Louis, huge portions of that post are false, especially when dealing with the terms of the treaty. Husar and myself have already quoted you the relevant sections in another thread.