 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
MtG:
Why would Germany want a war in 1914? Germany didn't start the fight, or at the very least they weren't solely responsible for it.
And the irony is, the nation that made the Entente victory possible, the US, didn't even sign onto the Treaty of Versailles, because they didn't feel that it fit into the 14 Points - ie, it really wasn't all that fair.
And you would be right if you made the point that the terms Germany gave to France after the Franco-Prussian War were also unfair, but that isn't the point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
On balance, no.
True, it would have prevented the Holocaust.
But I don't think it would have prevented WW2 as such (Fascists V Communists V Capitalists). The factors leading up to it (population, economic, lack of militarisation).
Also, Germany might have ended up with a leader who wasn't a total lunatic. Scary thought that.
Better the devil you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Well, since I've never had the opportunity to interview the Kaiser or Ludendorff, I can't tell you why he chose to declare war on Russia on August 1st or France on August 3, or why he decided to execute the Schlieffen plan, even though it called for invasion of a neutral country. |
And, for that matter, why did Russia choose to encourage Serbia to be hostile and belligerent towards Austria-Hungary in the first place?
quote:
My point is that an attacker who loses isn't in a good negotiating position. The choices are (a) don't attack; (b) if you do attack, don't lose (blame von Bulow for hanging up von Kluck in that regard); or (c) take what you get dealt if you screw up a and b. |
It's hard to say who the responsible party is in WW1 - I think it's fair to say that all major powers bear some of the blame.
As to Germany losing, read a book called "The Pity of War" by Niall Ferguson - it presents an interesting viewpoint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
Yes, going to war is always wrong, but on the other hand, I think that Germany had a reasonable expectation of winning the war at the outset (or, at least, a damn certain expectation of not losing to any combination of European powers), and, before the US entered the war in a major way, I think the facts somewhat bore this out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
On the Western Front it tended towards stalemate. However, a German general named von Mudra also won some pretty impressive victories on a "stalemated" front.
Further, from 1914 on, Germany knocked out at least one combatant per year out of the war (Belgium, Serbia, Romania, Russia, and Italy was on the way out as well).
The Germans inflicted insanely higher casualties on the French/BEF than the French and BEF did on them, and while they stayed on the defensive - with only local counterattacks - this was even more pronounced. The French and British were intentionally reporting significantly distorted casualty figures from the battlefield to the politicians.
Even Verdun probably could have been won if the Germans had kept at it, and as late as 1918, the only reason the BEF was able to advance was because the German army in Flanders (the British sector) was voluntarily falling back - anytime they stood and fought the BEF, the BEF took a bit of an ass-whipping in terms of casualties vs. rate/amount of advance, particularly as compared to the American advance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
But why the confrontational attitude if someone across a Boston subway platform happens to say: "Whoa! Check out that guy with the Hitler mustache! It's totally like Hitler's! It's all short and stuff. Remember when Hitler was all, you know, killing everybody? That was raw! Hey, why is that guy staring at us?"
On one hand, a little hostility is understandable. You're just standing around, minding your own business, waiting for the Red Line, and some guy starts smarting off — just because you happen to have facial hair practically copyrighted by one of history's bloodiest tyrants. It's not like you're wearing a swastika on your arm, and even if you were — who's to say it's not a different swastika? You know, an anti-racist swastika. Your own thing. It's like, "look! It's not a swastika! It's a nicetika!"
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2003 07:40
) - the way Japan was dealt with after the war was more reasonable. Impoverishing and humiliating a defeated enemy just makes them want to get back at you even more: after all the desire for revenge is one of the most potent human emotions. By all means try to minimize the future threat from a beaten enemy, but don't humiliate them.
|