Tbh everybody was waging war. The French had their Plan XVII and even though Britain didn't have a plan, the British were ready to cooperate with the French.
France was eager to retrieve the areas of Alsace and Lorraine which were annexed
by Germany in 1871.
Although Germany didn't have direct interests in Europe it was eager to gain more colonial land (demonstarted in 1905-6 and 1911 Morocco crisis)
It was everyone's fault, almost everybody wanted war and had their own interets.
@TheSerjy however the french had a better reason to go to war, it was a deceitfull and disgusting premeditated move bismark made to make france go to war with prussia in 1870, and after that they arrogantly take alsace and lorraine whose population largely felt as being french, so france had a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war with germany, whereas germany was just greedy...
The Plan actually happened in the complete opposite manner in which it was supposed to. Instead of having France beaten before the Russians could properly mobilize, the Russians were eventually beaten in 1917, while the war with France (and Britain, unforeseen) in the west dragged on
Come join the reincanation of The Austrian Empire on Cybernations! Just type cybernations into google, create a nation and switch your alliance affiliation to The Austrian Empire! More instructions will then follow. Love live Austria! We need many nations to make our fledging alliance into a grand empire once again!
Good presentation, but with a few errors. I would add : the forts of Liege and NAMUR.
In the East, the Schlieffen Plan did not fail, as the Germans won a dazzling victory at Tannenberg.
In France, the Germans did not run "out of supplies" at the Marne.
Detail: Although several heavy German guns were nicknamed "Bertha", the name rather appeared in Spring 1918, when a huge cannon bombarded Paris from a 120 km distance – just to kill civilian and destroy churches...
@neymoura If it is then it is highly unlikely that the film came from after Tannenberg. It was first line soldiers at the outset of the war. Most of them were armed at that point with Nagants. Maybe a little later.
wtf Its RUSSIAN attack saved alies from destroying on the west. Alies asked russian HQ to attack as early as possible.Offensive needed quickly, therefore russian army was badly prepared and organised.
@SAVIn reality it was poor execution by the Germans, and little else. The Belgian forts did help slow them, but they weakened the right to send divisions East to face a Russian force that would be destroyed before they arrived. They allowed the left side of the line to attack against the French forts in the center near Toul, wasting precious resources needed on the right. Finally the commanders were not paying attention to each other, with the wrong men occupying the more senior positions.
Topics: DISCUSSION ON DEMOCRACY, The Weapon That Can Break The Cycle Of War And Terrorism, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
AN IDEAL STRONGEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY INCLUDED (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.).
@pejb83 , as a complete, devastating victory in a battle, I would say yes, but not otherwise. Tactically, it was an encirclement, while at Austerlitz the main French attack was in the center. The Germans attacking one Russian army, then the other, looks rather like Bonaparte's early Italian campaign in April 1796.
And, strategically, Tannenberg did not end the war, while Austerlitz was followed by a peace treaty.
@lilbrothaaa They expected the attack to come. The failure was in the will of Moltke to pull off the plan. He could not countenance Russians fighting on German Soil even though it was a given in the plan. As a result he pulled vitl soldiers and resources from the Western advance.
@ket543128 Who is us? Britain? Britain was busy telling France to be sure not to enter Belgium herself. They knew it was coming, they just thought their plan was superior and it wasnt.
@WilliamRaleigh7 You should know that part of British people come from Saxons which are Germanic people...Look at Germany map, you have Sachsen and Niedersachsen (Saxe and Low-Saxe). This means you are cousins. Just like some French have Germanic origins to.
@Mr91OCB I know, but our forefathers come more from Denmark than from Germany, the truth is that Prussia stole Denmark territory and that's why many people confuse it.
@Mr91OCB Correct, the English people came from the Anglo-Saxons, England used to be called "Angleland". The French came from the Germanic tribe known as the "franks".
@stayeducated1 French is a mix of germanic francs,and burgunds, celtics and romans. (and also a bit arabic blood in the south just like for sicilia or Spain).
@stayeducated1 And Gauls, perhaps more Gauls than Franks (even though from 500 onwards it will be known as the Frankish Empire), anyway these are the two "main" ancestors of the French. Roman influence is more "cultural", but some ancestors are Roman it's true.
world war 1 started by fault of a bosnian serb gang called the black hand and killed franz ferdinand so after i think it was originally planned as just war between austro hungary and serbia but.... well you know the rest!
@kfsryakunt09 yeah i know but the other country's prepared for a war in 1919 so there would be war anyway, they could also be way in the first and second crisis of morrocco
@kfsryakunt09 Black Hand was not Bosnian, it was from Serbia. It was a group of army officers who wanted to secure Serbia's future and to unite all Serbs into one country-Serbia. Gavrilo Princip ( the guy who shot the archduke, his surname means principle on Serbian-what a coincidence :D ) was also a Serb from Serbia, merely a 17 year old boy as I recall. He shot the archduke because he insulted Serbs by parading his troops in Sarajevo on 28th June, the most painful date for Serbs
@asdfasqwrt He didn't parade soldiers in Sarajevo. He was attending regular maneuvers outside of the city. It was precisely that he DID NOT have soldiers in the city that the route was so unprotected. He was warned to put them in and did not do it as NOT to antagonize the Bosnians. Princip was indeed a Bosnian, born and bred. He was also less than a month shy of his 20th birthday which was important in keeping him from being executed (granted being sentenced to prison amounted to the same).
@kfsryakunt09 Archudke was even warned by his ministers not to parade his men on that day, but he didn't listen. And he was partly responsible for his death. HE could have been saved if his uniform wasn't so tight that it could have been only opened by scissors. And by the time they found one, he was already dead... :)
Well, I could have sworn the war started when a fellow named Archie Duke shot an ostrige cuz he was hungry xD
@asdfasqwrt Ferdinand was also responsible because as he was coming into the town a Black Hand member threw a grenade at him but missed. When he got to where he was going, (cant remember if it was a courthouse or something else) him and his Assistants (or officers) devised a complicated plan to get out of the city without being ambushed. It was a great plan and they reviewed it over and they told all his officers. The one person he forgot to tell was his driver. So he went same way and was shot.
@mrIhaveamuffin It was not a plan to get out of town, nor was it complicated. He simply ordered them to go to the hospital to visit those who were injured in the explosion. IT is true however that the driver was not given the new itinerary.
@mrIhaveamuffin They canceled the rest of the planned activities to go to the hospital. That was definitely the reason. He wasn't simply getting out of Dodge.
Possibly this just the beginning of an hour-long documentary which was uploaded incomplete; BBC documentaries are well renowned for having complete information and unbiased.
@Eurofighter19 yeah i agree with you there. but i have some ho-hum documentaries on ww1 here, and it seems that ww2 is more interesting to film and discuss. personally, ww1 has some kind of weird hold on me. i dont have family who fought in france, so theres no connexion there, but somehow i feel one anyways.
Although one is WWI and the other WWII, both are very different wars.
WWI is the last imperial war in which all belligerent nations did have some responsibility, not just Germany as the Treaty of Versailles stated.
WWII was a war driven by resentment, hatred and racism in which the Axis Powers waged a genocidal war of naked aggression against an, for the most part, unprepared Europe and in which the Axis Powers had to be defeated in order to restore liberty in Europe and South East Asia.
@Eurofighter19 how the french instead of meeting the germans at the belgian border, were so determined to attack them in alsace-lorraine, even though they knew they lacked the manpower to hold the belgian border and attack in alsace. how if the british were not at the mons, the french would have been overrun. how von Klucks first army drifted eastwards north of paris instead of heading more south to wrap around paris. how the germans discounted the british and the belgians. etc. etc. etc.
@GeneralSauerKraut pretty much yeah. funny thing though, de Gaulle actually was able to blunt some of the blitzkrieg and counter attacked, but lacked the manpower and the political will to further his small gains.
@asgaard636 lol yes! i got it right! ;p but yes the schieliffen plan was suppose to be kind of like a rotating door, by keeping the left wing significantly weaker than the right, it was hoped that the allied armies in lorraine would push the german left wing back and in so doing lure the allied armies farther inward while the german right wing would swing around and hit them either in flank or rear. as Liddel Hart put it, the harder the allies pushed, the harder would be the stroke to their rear
The title is misleading: It really wasn't a failure of the Schleiffen plan, as the German command diluted the Count's envisioned plan- Remember his widely quoted deathbed warning!
@gasdfw5 yes if the US never showed up in either WW German would win but again if France or Russia etc never helped Germany wouyld win it was a team effore t you can say one nation was more important they all played keybroles that without one the rest fall.
today Germany is only 65% of the size it was in 1914. So their plans for a "place in the sun" backfired horribly.
But the Alsatians, lorrainers, Northern Schleswig, and Poland all got their freedom...as did the rest of eastern Europe like South Slavs, Romanians of Transylvania, Czech, Slovaks, Ruthenians,
And Germany finally got truly democratic govt in 1945..but at a heavy price to the world.
@EdwardRommel Stupid Alsatians, Lorrainians and North Schleswigians idn't get independence just new rulers Alsatians were predominitaley erman Lorrainers were slightly more Frence and North Schleswigians were slightly more Danish thats all. Poland didn't get independence from Germany they were independent and got territories from them the gained definition from poland since they held much of the post War Poland.
Bismarck and Austria promised a plebiscite to Denmark for N. Schleswig ..then renigged on the promise. The Versailles Treaty enforced the promise..and they voted overwhelmingly to be part of Denmark.
Alsace 's representatives all formally protested the annexation in Bordeaux in 1871. Later the newly elected Alsatian reps to the German Reichstag read a written protest in the Reichstag protesting the annexation in 1874.
@EdwardRommel Bordeaux thats in South western France what are you talking about? North Schleswig is a bit less than half and if the had Holstein and Lauenburg they needed Schleswig all of it to make a valid point they were fighting against the danes who wished to speperrate them and they couldn't seperated them either or there point is moot.
Poland received Posen(62% polish speaking)..and they received West Prussia.
There is some debate on the %'s for West Prussia...but Germany always included German bureaucrats stationed in a territory as locals and they also included German troops stationed in a territory as locals.
By 1922 the % of Germans in West Prussia had fallen to just 18%...did they flee? Why flee west Prussia but not the sudetenland.
No..they did not flee...but they were out of a job and left
@EdwardRommel Some left becuase the didn't like Poland if I was a German with nationalism still powerful Id move back to Germany its normal and they needed west prussia to connect with East Prussia the poles tried several times to close of the land route through west prussia that was promised by Versialles and actually did it for a while causeing a more expensive ship route.
@EdwardRommel Part of that reason was Poland was fighting wars at the time and the Polish government was embarking on make poland Polish campaigns. Sudetenland was not as culturally unstable. The big part of the debate over % is that census records are poor. Everyone was moving west: The Germans to Germany and the Poles fleeing the Eastern parts of Poland which was a warzone for several years after the end of WWI.
If you think Alsatians were loyal Prussians or Germans read up on the Saverne (Zabern) affair of November 1913. It caused quite a scandal in Germany that even involved the Kaiser and the Crown Prince.
A Prussian Lt. became enraged when he saw a French word for chicken on a menu in Saverne...that started some arrests and protests.
Read "Lingquistic oppression in the German Empire" by Barker at archive,org from 1918. It explains their policies restricting language uses.
@EdwardRommel Of coarse its nessicary thats what we should have in the US its nessicary for unity and proper communication! ;looka t the messed up Austro-Hungarian Empire an officer needed to know all languages his men spoke that could be more than 14 languages since towards the end some were mixed in. The French had several things like that suppresing German and Alsatian dialects in Alsace and Lorrain before Louis XIV they were nominal German lands but he annexed them and replaced lots of Germa
Because language doesn't change overnight and those policies had only been in place since the Revolution? Though Alsace was technically French throughout the 75 odd years, much of the time was unstable with only haphazard Parisian control over the region. The French had difficulty elimitating the local languages UNTIL 1914 with the enormous movement of people from all over the country to the Western Front as well as the cities. None of that means that the French did not develop the concept.
You still can not deny the votes of the Alsatian people..and therefore the votes of their representatives in both the French parliament of 1871 at Bordeaux and the German parliament of 1874 in Berlin at the Reichstag.
@EdwardRommel The French were not welcomed into Alsace in 1918. As a matter of fact, Alsace attempted to declare itself an independent republic. They welcomed the end of the war, but frankly they were mistreated by both sides over the years and were culturally different from both as well.
I've seen images of them being greeted warmly in November 1918.
SOME Alsatians wanted independence but many Alsatians wanted to return to France.
I base my opinion mainly on how the elected Alsatian representatives protested the annexation in 1871 and 1874. Why would Alsatians elect men who were against the annexation unless they themselves were also against the annexation because the men elected had known positions on the issue.
@EdwardRommel That could be said in many cases. Crowds of Germans celebrated the end of WWII with Americans in some areas. It doesn't mean they wanted to be anything but German in the long term.
There are people in the US who elect officials who do not agree with various Federal authority up to and including control over land (Hawaii in particular), That does not mean they are in a majority. As I said elsewhere small minorities can be quite vocal. I expect the majority really didn't care.
The linguistic policies of the French were actually more effective in influencing the germans to treat the Alsatians as French, Ironically, than in making the Alsatians French. The rest of the world did view France as a "Nation" compared with its own internal views. Ergo the Germans treated them that way. If you want another example of this look no further than American treatment of the Japanese in WWII.
And who wouldn't seize the property of deserters? What does that have to do with anything?
The alsatians were never made a 26th German state...they were just a "Reichsland"..or empire land...they belonged to the whole German empire not to just one state such as Baden or Wurtemburg or Prussia.
they didn't even have a Constitution until 1911...and even then they didn't have the sovereignty of a German state. They didn't want a monarchy as the Kaiser suggested. They were republicans.
but a Republican state within the German Empire would have caused problems.
@EdwardRommel In theory, different parts of the German Federation were already Republican. They did have representation in the Reichstag, which is just as much say for citizens as virtually every other region of Germany (i.e. almost nil at that point). The decision to directly control it from the Federal level was a strategic decision with little to do with respect to the citzenry. IT had everything to do with the internal politics of the New German Empire.
well, they seized the property of deserter's family...not just the deserter's property.
Many Alsatians would join the French Foreign Legion...then the Germans would seize his family 's home.
The Germans also would place Alsatians in dangerous sectors of the front...and they would not allow them to know military secrets. They also abused them during army boot camp training.
They called Alsatians "Wackes" which means lazy bumb...it's very insulting to an Alsatian.
@EdwardRommel No they didn't there were repots of French on a different incident what did the French do tto jewish captain Alfred Dreyfuss they accused him of selling secrets and they new it was a French man all sides treated sertain nationalities or sub peoples harshly if a person deserted and his brother lives in his countruy he could be tempted to spy for his deserter brother that is fair they would do that to regular Germans if the did that.
You are correct...anti-semitism was actually higher in pre WW1 France than in pre WW1 Germany. That's also what Richard Evans book "The Coming of the Third Reich" says.
I often read old books at archive,org....and one of the very interesting books was from 1913 called "Men Around the Kaiser"...it profiles about 30 men like the crown Prince, Bethmann Hollweg, Ballin, etc...
They also have some good books on Alsace by men like Blumenthal, Abbe Wetterle.
@EdwardRommel The Blumenthal book has to be taken with the grain of salt of a man who was writing with motive. I am not familiar with Wetterle. No doubt part of that is I am limited to English sources as I can't read German at all, and my French is poor. Ironic being that I majored in Modern German History...It is also difficult to get primary material in the US.
Now both the French parliamentarians of 1871 and the German parlimentarians were elected by universal suffrage...one man one vote.
So if men like Blumenthal and Wetterle were being elected to the German Reichstag even after 40 years of German rule in Alsace...and even after some 500,000 German settlers had moved into Alsace and 600,000 French had fled to France....that tells me that Alsatians were pro-French despite them speaking a German patois language.
@EdwardRommel Only a small percentage of the population could actually vote, or did. You have to expect that many of them would have been men who owned property and were established. Questionable people get elected all the time and it really only take a small dedicated minority to do it quite often. Look no further than the US.
@EdwardRommel Cool. I will look into them. I have studied the military and diplomatic aspects far more than the domestic over the years.
The Saverne affair really underlined the general domestic problems in Germany. It was an extreme example, but citizens throughout the Empire had issues with Prussia and the Military. That Alsace was run directly made it an obvious focal point for such an issue to arise.
There is a book entirely on the Saverne affair at amazon called "The Zabern affair 1913-1914" by Richard Mackey from 1991.
Voting in the German Empire was open to all men 25 years old. However representation in the Reichstag was not accurate because they didn't reapportion districts. So for example Berlin 's number of reps did not increase much between 1871 and 1914 even though it's population tripled. So the poor and middle class were under represented in the Reichstag.
The Versailles Treaty gets a lot bad press but the reality is that they tried very hard to be fair to Germany.
The reparation bill of 32 billion 1919 US dollars was not excessive. They charged Germany for about 30% of the allied cost of the war...mainly the pensions for widows and orphans, and the cost to rebuild N France and Belgium.
They did not charge Germany for Allied soldier's salaries, uniforms, bullets or tanks or airplanes. They only charged for damage done
Versailles was a mess and certainly meant to break Germany. However, its a myth that the treaty itself and the Reparations were responsible for the plight of the early 20's and the rise of Nazism. It was only a symbol as far as that was concerned.
More than the reps, the damage to shipping and transport was excessive. Further, the manner in which the Germans were handled was atrocious. They were basically forced to sign in the same manner in which Serbia had been expected to with the Ultimatum.
Why were the German colonies all seized in the VT? well, Japan wanted compensation for its blood and treasure spent in the war....so Japan got all the German colonies north of the equator.
New Zealand and Australia suffered big losses and so they got all the German colonies south of the equator. They demanded compensation.
South Africa wanted compensation for its losses. Britain took German East Africa so it could complete the Cairo to CapeTown railroad.
I don't think the Kaiser ever wanted Germany to be reduced to just 65% of its 1914 size and clearly he never would have anticipated anything like Nazism rising in Germany. He actually didn't think Hitler was normal by having no wife or children.
But that is called the "Law of unintended consequences"
Yeah...archive,org is a great website...you can just download old books into PDF for free.
I have read the memoirs of the Kaiser, the Crown Prince, Bethmann Hollweg,
@EdwardRommel He original supportedHitlers annexation but after things started going bad he lost faith and stopped looking over the weird thinksgs about him like no wife or child. the 1938 borders after the annexation of the Sudetenland was perfect. A perfect German Border would be in my mind 1938 borders excluding non-Sudeten Bohemia-Moravia, plus Alsace (not Lorraine, Luxemburg part of the Belgian territory that was on the border like Eupen-Malmedy and mayby West Prussia. West Prussia and Dan
@EdwardRommel Danzig would have to be protected by international law as a non military zone (both nations may move military personnel and equipment through but not into it permanently and would have to be open to both German and polish ships which was what was guaranteed in Versialles butnot upheld when Poland blocked it off and Germany pleaded with france and Britian to force them to reopen it.
@EdwardRommel Except for the fact that no one was supposed to get colonies out of all of this. The handing over of Shangtung to Japan was an absolute miscarriage, as well as the shambles left in the Middle East (separate treaty but same conference).
People went into the conference with high hopes and were subjected to short-sighted old men refusing to pay attention to the changing world, directly leading to a century of further conflict.
In Germany's "SeptemberProgramme" of Sept 9th, 1914 they wanted to annex the French colonies.
The British actually tried to help Germany buy the Portuguese colonies before WW1 because the British knew that Germany felt her "place in the sun" was insufficient for a great power.
Japan insisted on compensation for their blood and treasure. They were critical to WW1 because they freed the British Navy to focus on the North Sea and mediteraneon...and convoy duty in the Atlantic.
@EdwardRommel Japan actually sacrificed very little. For all intents and purposes they were done in November 1914. And in return the Allies sold their other erstwhile ally, China, down the river.
Basically everyone wanted compensation for their blood and treasure.
The USA stood to gain no territory...but it did want its massive loans to Britain, France and italy and to Russia...all paid back. Can't blame them for that. No one likes being stiffed on a loan.
Britain, France and Italy were broke in 1919..so they could only pay the USA back if they got paid from Germany.
It's sad what happened to Germany but they should have thought about that in July 1914.
@EdwardRommel Yeah but the allies should have also thought about it and let Austia-Hungary annex Serbia the Empire would collpase soon after with the mix of culture and everybody would be happy.
The correct map of Germany is probably what Germany had after the Munich Conference but Hitler got greedy and went into prague which was clearly not German speaking.
Unfortunately the Germans were very cruel to the slavs in the east...so Germans HAD to be expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland. There was just too much anti-German animosity for them to remain in Poland or Czechoslovakia after WW2
Bismarck predicted that the German Empire would not last...he was right
@EdwardRommel yeah but guess what Silesia Pomerrnia and Neumark were never Polish or slavic and the Sudentne were heavily German you shouldn't expel the majority or the native peoples.
It's a known fact that both Roosevelt and Churchill felt that the current oder/neisse border between Germany and Poland was too far to the west. And yes the areas lost in WW2 were clearly majority German speaking.
The problem was that Russia wanted compensation for all the damage the Nais did while in Russia but Germay was broke...so they took eastern Poland which did have some Russians and Ukrainians living there.
So then Poland had to be compensated with territory
@EdwardRommel Yeah I know its because Russia didn't want to give up its section of Poland that it got in 1939 which is wrong and it would be a small weak country if it didn't get those territories from German i personall think german should getb those territories back and at least the Kalinningard oblast the southern half Poland can keep and the eastern part Lithuania can have.
@TreuBlauPreussin It is pointless now, as due to the mass migrations those places are not the same ethnically. Besides that point, like I said earlier, the entire concept of arranging countries by "nationality" is a disaster waiting to happen.
@TreuBlauPreussin wait what I now you are not Nazis its just a bit of Friendley bantter you dont understand the British sence of humor which is ok I guess but Hun and Kraut date back to the 17th century for Germans Bosche and Goune has since been reused.
Honestley you can call me what ever Limey Beef eatter silly sod tea drinker you just have to look at these names and laugh.
they have nothing to do with Nazism Hun Kraut just nicknames and they are not bad you could be welsh Sheep Shagger .
Regards but yes it is just banter nothing to do with Nazism if I call A Russian Ivan or Vlad I am not insunating he his a Communist same goes for the Germans you have a rich history which I have reserched beyond the 15 years of nazism.
The Holy Roman Empire , The Tetonic Order, Otto von Bismarck the Franco-Prussian War Wiemar Republic The 2nd Riech ( German Empire) you should be proud of your nation.
@EdwardRommel The real problem was that the Soviets provided them with a fait accompli. The Western Allies were not willing to utilize the men necessary to fight the Germans that far, and certainly not to keep fighting the Soviets after Germany capitulated.
Right...everyone was tired of all the killing...and after all most non-Germans believed that Germany had started two terrible world wars, fought both in a vicious manner, AND then to top it all off had committed an unbelievable genocide against their own Jewish population.
I used to feel sorry for Germany...that's why I have read so many books on Germany. I am now comfortable with Germany's current borders. I understand why they are where they are.
@EdwardRommel I would not say I feel badly for Germany. I feel badly for the world because Germany got a bad rap for WWI which played an enormous role in creating WWII. If Germany had been treated fairly (and keep in mind this is not just materially, but in the imaginations of people who had bought into Wilson's concepts), it is possible millions would not have perished only 20 years later. The issue is that in looking back on Imp. G modern perspective is tainted by the evil of the Nazi regime.
The VT was criticized for the "Guilt Clause" but really there was no way around it. Germany would only lose territory and pay money if she did something wrong in July 1914. So that had to be empasized in the treaty that Germany had indeed done something very wrong in 1914.
BTW..Lichnowsky wrote a 2nd book in 1926 called "Heading for the Abyss" where he tried to explain how his personal notes got published in 1918. He gave the notes to a relative..the relative leaked them.
@TreuBlauPreussin The entire concept of nationality is modern. All of those lands had been settled and resettled and it was a ridiculous notion ever to expect a single "national" body. Look at what happened with Greece and Turkey after the War...these people had often lived in towns for centuries only to get thrown out. The problem has been repeated since, whether in Poland after WWII or Palestine or India or Yugoslavia. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
@EdwardRommel None of those things are particularly unusual or unprecedented. The Germans up until right before the war had been very tolerant and the major change in tact did not occur until well into the war. In the meantime, you should read accounts of the French "liberating" the region.
Similar issues occurred all over Europe where a third pop was being fought over by two others: Tyrol, Poland, the Balkans etc. In general the Alsatians came out pretty well in comparison.
@EdwardRommel I have not read either of those sources, but I'm familiar with Blumenthal from Secondary sources. I enjoy reading contemporary accounts, but one of the more interesting things about them is to understand their motivations and perspectives from the distance of nearly a century. The issue with Blumenthal from my understanding is that discerning propaganda from reality is difficult.
Blumenthal was sentenced to death 8 times by the Kaiser's courts(see wikipedia article on him).
I enjoy reading contemporary books at archive,org because they are like a time machine. They take you back to the emotions and views of that time.
I also read some books on the two Hague Peace Conventions. Apparently Germany refused attempts at disarmament and arbitration. I also found out that it was legal for neutrals to sell weapons to beligerants.
It was legal, and Holland was doing so for Germany, at least at the outset. It was part of the thinking that went into the German decision not to invade Holland. The British blockade, however disagreed and they found ways to prevent such trade.
I have only cursory knowledge of the details surrounding the Hague conventions. I don't remember the info though presumably I read some years ago. I know what they did and how it influenced policy, but not the actual negotiations involved.
@EdwardRommel The didn't rebel under German rule why do the still have French there and not belong to Germany they were the same and viewed them as enemies. They did that because those wer French Alsatians dumbass. They seized [properties of deserters because their traitros the French would have dione the same.
@neymoura The barely entered East Prussia the Russians surrendered because German was moving slow but dure throught the Baltics and capture Riga and would take Tallinin and use that as a base to attack St. Petersburg then the would have to attack Moscow whic would be hard but the Russians at this time would never retake lost territroy and would eventually withdrwal from Galicia to Ukraine and would surrender tduy to a loss of Poland the Baltics Caucasas and Beloruss. (Caucasas to Ottomans).
Is this lack of rifles on the part of the Russians a deliberate blind spot? This happened in WW2 as well.
JFDA5458 2 weeks ago
Belgian flag is BLACK, yellow and red... not green -.-
Blowerfield 1 month ago
Comment removed
gohmasses 1 month ago
"The war was going to take longer than the germans have planned." The germans didnt want war, the entete did.
Medysonball 1 month ago
@Medysonball
they had planned for it for over 20 years.
morgengabe1 1 month ago
@Medysonball
Tbh everybody was waging war. The French had their Plan XVII and even though Britain didn't have a plan, the British were ready to cooperate with the French.
France was eager to retrieve the areas of Alsace and Lorraine which were annexed
by Germany in 1871.
Although Germany didn't have direct interests in Europe it was eager to gain more colonial land (demonstarted in 1905-6 and 1911 Morocco crisis)
It was everyone's fault, almost everybody wanted war and had their own interets.
TheSerjy 1 month ago
@TheSerjy however the french had a better reason to go to war, it was a deceitfull and disgusting premeditated move bismark made to make france go to war with prussia in 1870, and after that they arrogantly take alsace and lorraine whose population largely felt as being french, so france had a perfectly legitimate reason to go to war with germany, whereas germany was just greedy...
boss180888 3 weeks ago in playlist Mais vídeos de mrallsop
The British-French crushed the German invasion 1914, The Germans were forced on the defence and bloody Trenchwarfare.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
The Plan actually happened in the complete opposite manner in which it was supposed to. Instead of having France beaten before the Russians could properly mobilize, the Russians were eventually beaten in 1917, while the war with France (and Britain, unforeseen) in the west dragged on
TalonMercenary 1 month ago
Hear the words i sing, wars a horrid thing, so i sing sing sing, ding-a-ling-a-ling
legokid5872 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Come join the reincanation of The Austrian Empire on Cybernations! Just type cybernations into google, create a nation and switch your alliance affiliation to The Austrian Empire! More instructions will then follow. Love live Austria! We need many nations to make our fledging alliance into a grand empire once again!
LeopoldHabsburg 2 months ago
1:40 Bottom right corner......Hitler
skawhileboarding 2 months ago
Comment removed
skawhileboarding 2 months ago
Good presentation, but with a few errors. I would add : the forts of Liege and NAMUR.
In the East, the Schlieffen Plan did not fail, as the Germans won a dazzling victory at Tannenberg.
In France, the Germans did not run "out of supplies" at the Marne.
Detail: Although several heavy German guns were nicknamed "Bertha", the name rather appeared in Spring 1918, when a huge cannon bombarded Paris from a 120 km distance – just to kill civilian and destroy churches...
Hippophilee 3 months ago
@TheVampirePerson Are you jealous? Or why do u hate us?
FinalDistrict 4 months ago
@TheVampirePerson soooo.....you hate people who fuck Germans?
liamliam123456 4 months ago
Thank you so much! You saved my history grade ^^
simoneevee8 4 months ago
@neymoura If it is then it is highly unlikely that the film came from after Tannenberg. It was first line soldiers at the outset of the war. Most of them were armed at that point with Nagants. Maybe a little later.
batigol47 4 months ago
@neymoura I think they were Nagants but it was hard to get a good look.
batigol47 4 months ago
wtf Its RUSSIAN attack saved alies from destroying on the west. Alies asked russian HQ to attack as early as possible.Offensive needed quickly, therefore russian army was badly prepared and organised.
Typical biased British doc((((
SAVSAV1212 5 months ago
@SAVIn reality it was poor execution by the Germans, and little else. The Belgian forts did help slow them, but they weakened the right to send divisions East to face a Russian force that would be destroyed before they arrived. They allowed the left side of the line to attack against the French forts in the center near Toul, wasting precious resources needed on the right. Finally the commanders were not paying attention to each other, with the wrong men occupying the more senior positions.
batigol47 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (Donated) For Debates And Governance
Topics: DISCUSSION ON DEMOCRACY, The Weapon That Can Break The Cycle Of War And Terrorism, Debated Issues, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
balancedway1.yolasite.com
balanceddiet.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
AN IDEAL STRONGEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY INCLUDED (See Subchapter 3.1.2.1, Chapter 3, of Part One.).
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
would you guys consider Tannenberg the German's version of "Austerlitz"??
pejb83 5 months ago
@pejb83 , as a complete, devastating victory in a battle, I would say yes, but not otherwise. Tactically, it was an encirclement, while at Austerlitz the main French attack was in the center. The Germans attacking one Russian army, then the other, looks rather like Bonaparte's early Italian campaign in April 1796.
And, strategically, Tannenberg did not end the war, while Austerlitz was followed by a peace treaty.
Hippophilee 3 months ago
the reason the plan failed is because "it was bollocks"
mrskinneys1234 5 months ago
The plan had failed at exactly the moment when the Russians invaded Prussia.
lilbrothaaa 5 months ago
@lilbrothaaa They expected the attack to come. The failure was in the will of Moltke to pull off the plan. He could not countenance Russians fighting on German Soil even though it was a given in the plan. As a result he pulled vitl soldiers and resources from the Western advance.
batigol47 4 months ago
reason why the Germans could with succes invade Belgium in WW1 en WW2 is because the French were too slow and didn't bother to listen to us.
ket543128 6 months ago
@ket543128 Who is us? Britain? Britain was busy telling France to be sure not to enter Belgium herself. They knew it was coming, they just thought their plan was superior and it wasnt.
batigol47 4 months ago
Cause of Germany WW1 and WW2 lost: too much fronts and logistic suck!
Vladek385 6 months ago
I love germans
majsota 6 months ago
Hate on me all you want, but this is the only war that I feel content with the outcome.
Zeferak 6 months ago
what!! 10:1 ration and germany still loses?
icecubefan21 8 months ago
@icecubefan21 Yeah they had the best position and they got help from the brits..
Rockstargames6 7 months ago
I hate germans, damn those bastards! Envious!
WilliamRaleigh7 8 months ago
@WilliamRaleigh7 D00d my Vater is Deutsch, so how about you go fuck yourself, yeah?
MrEnglandsFinest 8 months ago
@MrEnglandsFinest damn it! You're British, by our side or against us.
WilliamRaleigh7 7 months ago
@WilliamRaleigh7 Yes but I love both sides of my ancestry. So it's hard to choose. But in this particular conflict I choose the German Empire.
MrEnglandsFinest 7 months ago
@WilliamRaleigh7 Racist asshole. go die in a fire.
BigMek456 6 months ago
@WilliamRaleigh7 Racist faggot!
Rockstargames6 7 months ago
@WilliamRaleigh7 You should know that part of British people come from Saxons which are Germanic people...Look at Germany map, you have Sachsen and Niedersachsen (Saxe and Low-Saxe). This means you are cousins. Just like some French have Germanic origins to.
Mr91OCB 7 months ago
@Mr91OCB I know, but our forefathers come more from Denmark than from Germany, the truth is that Prussia stole Denmark territory and that's why many people confuse it.
WilliamRaleigh7 6 months ago
@Mr91OCB Correct, the English people came from the Anglo-Saxons, England used to be called "Angleland". The French came from the Germanic tribe known as the "franks".
stayeducated1 6 months ago
@stayeducated1 French is a mix of germanic francs,and burgunds, celtics and romans. (and also a bit arabic blood in the south just like for sicilia or Spain).
Mr91OCB 6 months ago
@stayeducated1 And Gauls, perhaps more Gauls than Franks (even though from 500 onwards it will be known as the Frankish Empire), anyway these are the two "main" ancestors of the French. Roman influence is more "cultural", but some ancestors are Roman it's true.
xenotypos 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WilliamRaleigh7
yes we know you hate germans but, germans are just humans so you hate humans, espacially germans you arent even better than hitler.
apfel61 7 months ago
is their a third part of this
lui3090 8 months ago
I've got a big bertha ;)
olympikdream 9 months ago
world war 1 started by fault of a bosnian serb gang called the black hand and killed franz ferdinand so after i think it was originally planned as just war between austro hungary and serbia but.... well you know the rest!
kfsryakunt09 10 months ago
@kfsryakunt09 yeah i know but the other country's prepared for a war in 1919 so there would be war anyway, they could also be way in the first and second crisis of morrocco
Southparkisfun 10 months ago
@kfsryakunt09 Black Hand was not Bosnian, it was from Serbia. It was a group of army officers who wanted to secure Serbia's future and to unite all Serbs into one country-Serbia. Gavrilo Princip ( the guy who shot the archduke, his surname means principle on Serbian-what a coincidence :D ) was also a Serb from Serbia, merely a 17 year old boy as I recall. He shot the archduke because he insulted Serbs by parading his troops in Sarajevo on 28th June, the most painful date for Serbs
asdfasqwrt 9 months ago
@asdfasqwrt He didn't parade soldiers in Sarajevo. He was attending regular maneuvers outside of the city. It was precisely that he DID NOT have soldiers in the city that the route was so unprotected. He was warned to put them in and did not do it as NOT to antagonize the Bosnians. Princip was indeed a Bosnian, born and bred. He was also less than a month shy of his 20th birthday which was important in keeping him from being executed (granted being sentenced to prison amounted to the same).
batigol47 8 months ago
@kfsryakunt09 Archudke was even warned by his ministers not to parade his men on that day, but he didn't listen. And he was partly responsible for his death. HE could have been saved if his uniform wasn't so tight that it could have been only opened by scissors. And by the time they found one, he was already dead... :)
Well, I could have sworn the war started when a fellow named Archie Duke shot an ostrige cuz he was hungry xD
asdfasqwrt 9 months ago
@asdfasqwrt Ferdinand was also responsible because as he was coming into the town a Black Hand member threw a grenade at him but missed. When he got to where he was going, (cant remember if it was a courthouse or something else) him and his Assistants (or officers) devised a complicated plan to get out of the city without being ambushed. It was a great plan and they reviewed it over and they told all his officers. The one person he forgot to tell was his driver. So he went same way and was shot.
mrIhaveamuffin 9 months ago
@mrIhaveamuffin It was not a plan to get out of town, nor was it complicated. He simply ordered them to go to the hospital to visit those who were injured in the explosion. IT is true however that the driver was not given the new itinerary.
batigol47 8 months ago
@batigol47 I may have exaggerated the complicity of the plan a bit too much. Also if what you say was true then my history teacher was wrong.
mrIhaveamuffin 8 months ago
@mrIhaveamuffin They canceled the rest of the planned activities to go to the hospital. That was definitely the reason. He wasn't simply getting out of Dodge.
batigol47 8 months ago
@asdfasqwrt Pretty doubtful that anything would have saved him even with modern standards.
batigol47 8 months ago
and in four minutes the war was won. i hate this kind of video which tries to encapsulate very detailed events into such a small amount of time.
cheomire 11 months ago
@cheomire
This video just covers opening movements by the belligerent nations in 1914, not even 1915.
Eurofighter19 11 months ago
@Eurofighter19 that is true, but there were a lot of details that were skimmed over which i dislike.
cheomire 11 months ago
@cheomire
Possibly this just the beginning of an hour-long documentary which was uploaded incomplete; BBC documentaries are well renowned for having complete information and unbiased.
Eurofighter19 11 months ago
@Eurofighter19 yeah i agree with you there. but i have some ho-hum documentaries on ww1 here, and it seems that ww2 is more interesting to film and discuss. personally, ww1 has some kind of weird hold on me. i dont have family who fought in france, so theres no connexion there, but somehow i feel one anyways.
cheomire 11 months ago
Although one is WWI and the other WWII, both are very different wars.
WWI is the last imperial war in which all belligerent nations did have some responsibility, not just Germany as the Treaty of Versailles stated.
WWII was a war driven by resentment, hatred and racism in which the Axis Powers waged a genocidal war of naked aggression against an, for the most part, unprepared Europe and in which the Axis Powers had to be defeated in order to restore liberty in Europe and South East Asia.
Eurofighter19 11 months ago
@cheomire
For example?
Eurofighter19 11 months ago
@Eurofighter19 how the french instead of meeting the germans at the belgian border, were so determined to attack them in alsace-lorraine, even though they knew they lacked the manpower to hold the belgian border and attack in alsace. how if the british were not at the mons, the french would have been overrun. how von Klucks first army drifted eastwards north of paris instead of heading more south to wrap around paris. how the germans discounted the british and the belgians. etc. etc. etc.
cheomire 11 months ago
@cheomire
Important points indeed.
Eurofighter19 11 months ago
i though Dora and ww2 artillery was bigger.
whitedragon1204 11 months ago
You know the thing about the German victory over the french in WWII was it was essentially just the Von Schlieffen Plan with Panzers and Stukas.
GeneralSauerKraut 1 year ago
@GeneralSauerKraut pretty much yeah. funny thing though, de Gaulle actually was able to blunt some of the blitzkrieg and counter attacked, but lacked the manpower and the political will to further his small gains.
cheomire 11 months ago
@GeneralSauerKraut It was more like an inversion of the Schlieffen plan.
batigol47 8 months ago
Stuka80: That's right! Once they started diluting the strength of Schleiffen's envisioned "scythe" it all began to unravel!
asgaard636 1 year ago
@asgaard636 lol yes! i got it right! ;p but yes the schieliffen plan was suppose to be kind of like a rotating door, by keeping the left wing significantly weaker than the right, it was hoped that the allied armies in lorraine would push the german left wing back and in so doing lure the allied armies farther inward while the german right wing would swing around and hit them either in flank or rear. as Liddel Hart put it, the harder the allies pushed, the harder would be the stroke to their rear
stuka80 1 year ago
The title is misleading: It really wasn't a failure of the Schleiffen plan, as the German command diluted the Count's envisioned plan- Remember his widely quoted deathbed warning!
asgaard636 1 year ago
@asgaard636 keep the right wing strong?
stuka80 1 year ago
thumbs up whoever is revising or doing a project??
steliozzfil 1 year ago 160
@steliozzfil test tommorrow!
sarahlouisehaycox 9 months ago
"they had only 150 thousand men"
"the german army outnumbered them ten to one"
YOU MEAN GERMANS HAD 1.5 MILLION SOLDIERS?!?!??!
DAMN not even china has that much
ulongkoror 1 year ago
@ulongkoror Im pretty sure mass mobilisation would have played a part since they lost 2 million men by the end of the war
duskwaith 1 year ago
@ulongkoror
During the war, Germany mobilized 11 millions men, France 8.5 millions and Russia 12 millions. In this time armies was bigger than today.
Aerilmellon 11 months ago
When common people play RISK it's fun.When politicians play RISK it's death.
Tsagia 1 year ago 71
@Tsagia further proof only the dumbest of comments get thumbs up
megalordification 1 year ago
@megalordification Your momma's.
Tsagia 1 year ago
@Tsagia Ha ha you got that right :)
TheIcelandicPatriot 5 months ago
@Tsagia i would say generals, not politicians...
TheLCusi 4 months ago
thanks sir.
Rico8458 1 year ago
@gasdfw5 yes if the US never showed up in either WW German would win but again if France or Russia etc never helped Germany wouyld win it was a team effore t you can say one nation was more important they all played keybroles that without one the rest fall.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Under the hague Peace Conventions of 1899 and 1907 neutral nations were allowed to sell weapons to beligerants.
Germany sold weapons to the British during the Boer War(even though German public opinion was pro-Boer)
Germany sold weapons to the Russians during the Russo-Japan war.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
today Germany is only 65% of the size it was in 1914. So their plans for a "place in the sun" backfired horribly.
But the Alsatians, lorrainers, Northern Schleswig, and Poland all got their freedom...as did the rest of eastern Europe like South Slavs, Romanians of Transylvania, Czech, Slovaks, Ruthenians,
And Germany finally got truly democratic govt in 1945..but at a heavy price to the world.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Stupid Alsatians, Lorrainians and North Schleswigians idn't get independence just new rulers Alsatians were predominitaley erman Lorrainers were slightly more Frence and North Schleswigians were slightly more Danish thats all. Poland didn't get independence from Germany they were independent and got territories from them the gained definition from poland since they held much of the post War Poland.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Do some more research on German Empire.
Bismarck and Austria promised a plebiscite to Denmark for N. Schleswig ..then renigged on the promise. The Versailles Treaty enforced the promise..and they voted overwhelmingly to be part of Denmark.
Alsace 's representatives all formally protested the annexation in Bordeaux in 1871. Later the newly elected Alsatian reps to the German Reichstag read a written protest in the Reichstag protesting the annexation in 1874.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Bordeaux thats in South western France what are you talking about? North Schleswig is a bit less than half and if the had Holstein and Lauenburg they needed Schleswig all of it to make a valid point they were fighting against the danes who wished to speperrate them and they couldn't seperated them either or there point is moot.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin Bordeaux was where the conference was held.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Bordeaux is where the French govt. fled to in both 1870 and 1914...dumkopf.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel I know they weren't going to anex it that makes no fucking sense.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Poland received Posen(62% polish speaking)..and they received West Prussia.
There is some debate on the %'s for West Prussia...but Germany always included German bureaucrats stationed in a territory as locals and they also included German troops stationed in a territory as locals.
By 1922 the % of Germans in West Prussia had fallen to just 18%...did they flee? Why flee west Prussia but not the sudetenland.
No..they did not flee...but they were out of a job and left
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Some left becuase the didn't like Poland if I was a German with nationalism still powerful Id move back to Germany its normal and they needed west prussia to connect with East Prussia the poles tried several times to close of the land route through west prussia that was promised by Versialles and actually did it for a while causeing a more expensive ship route.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Part of that reason was Poland was fighting wars at the time and the Polish government was embarking on make poland Polish campaigns. Sudetenland was not as culturally unstable. The big part of the debate over % is that census records are poor. Everyone was moving west: The Germans to Germany and the Poles fleeing the Eastern parts of Poland which was a warzone for several years after the end of WWI.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
If you think Alsatians were loyal Prussians or Germans read up on the Saverne (Zabern) affair of November 1913. It caused quite a scandal in Germany that even involved the Kaiser and the Crown Prince.
A Prussian Lt. became enraged when he saw a French word for chicken on a menu in Saverne...that started some arrests and protests.
Read "Lingquistic oppression in the German Empire" by Barker at archive,org from 1918. It explains their policies restricting language uses.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Of coarse its nessicary thats what we should have in the US its nessicary for unity and proper communication! ;looka t the messed up Austro-Hungarian Empire an officer needed to know all languages his men spoke that could be more than 14 languages since towards the end some were mixed in. The French had several things like that suppresing German and Alsatian dialects in Alsace and Lorrain before Louis XIV they were nominal German lands but he annexed them and replaced lots of Germa
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel ans with French and converted many increasing French and decreasing Germans so its right for them to posses it.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Which is ironic considering the French invented such linguistic policies.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
If that is true...why were the Alsatians ....still speakig Alsatian in 1870 instead of French?
Why did the French Kings always defer to French when they visited Alsace from 1650 to 1870?
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
Because language doesn't change overnight and those policies had only been in place since the Revolution? Though Alsace was technically French throughout the 75 odd years, much of the time was unstable with only haphazard Parisian control over the region. The French had difficulty elimitating the local languages UNTIL 1914 with the enormous movement of people from all over the country to the Western Front as well as the cities. None of that means that the French did not develop the concept.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
You still can not deny the votes of the Alsatian people..and therefore the votes of their representatives in both the French parliament of 1871 at Bordeaux and the German parliament of 1874 in Berlin at the Reichstag.
The French were welcomed into Alsace in 1918.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel iun some parts after the Germans left German Nationalism was reallyb high who wants French rulers when you are German.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel The French were not welcomed into Alsace in 1918. As a matter of fact, Alsace attempted to declare itself an independent republic. They welcomed the end of the war, but frankly they were mistreated by both sides over the years and were culturally different from both as well.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
I've seen images of them being greeted warmly in November 1918.
SOME Alsatians wanted independence but many Alsatians wanted to return to France.
I base my opinion mainly on how the elected Alsatian representatives protested the annexation in 1871 and 1874. Why would Alsatians elect men who were against the annexation unless they themselves were also against the annexation because the men elected had known positions on the issue.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel That could be said in many cases. Crowds of Germans celebrated the end of WWII with Americans in some areas. It doesn't mean they wanted to be anything but German in the long term.
There are people in the US who elect officials who do not agree with various Federal authority up to and including control over land (Hawaii in particular), That does not mean they are in a majority. As I said elsewhere small minorities can be quite vocal. I expect the majority really didn't care.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47 Alsatia was split mainly German though.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@batigol47
If the French were linguistically oppressive ...why were the Alsatiians still speaking Alsatian after 200 years of French rule?
Why did the Alsatians not ever rebel under French rule as they did under Prussian rule? Why were there no Saverne affairs?
Why did so many Alsatians desert the German Army to join the French Foreign Legion before WW1?
Why did the German Army not trust Alsatians with secret information?
Why did the German army seize property of deserters?
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
The linguistic policies of the French were actually more effective in influencing the germans to treat the Alsatians as French, Ironically, than in making the Alsatians French. The rest of the world did view France as a "Nation" compared with its own internal views. Ergo the Germans treated them that way. If you want another example of this look no further than American treatment of the Japanese in WWII.
And who wouldn't seize the property of deserters? What does that have to do with anything?
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
The alsatians were never made a 26th German state...they were just a "Reichsland"..or empire land...they belonged to the whole German empire not to just one state such as Baden or Wurtemburg or Prussia.
they didn't even have a Constitution until 1911...and even then they didn't have the sovereignty of a German state. They didn't want a monarchy as the Kaiser suggested. They were republicans.
but a Republican state within the German Empire would have caused problems.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel In theory, different parts of the German Federation were already Republican. They did have representation in the Reichstag, which is just as much say for citizens as virtually every other region of Germany (i.e. almost nil at that point). The decision to directly control it from the Federal level was a strategic decision with little to do with respect to the citzenry. IT had everything to do with the internal politics of the New German Empire.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
well, they seized the property of deserter's family...not just the deserter's property.
Many Alsatians would join the French Foreign Legion...then the Germans would seize his family 's home.
The Germans also would place Alsatians in dangerous sectors of the front...and they would not allow them to know military secrets. They also abused them during army boot camp training.
They called Alsatians "Wackes" which means lazy bumb...it's very insulting to an Alsatian.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel No they didn't there were repots of French on a different incident what did the French do tto jewish captain Alfred Dreyfuss they accused him of selling secrets and they new it was a French man all sides treated sertain nationalities or sub peoples harshly if a person deserted and his brother lives in his countruy he could be tempted to spy for his deserter brother that is fair they would do that to regular Germans if the did that.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
You are correct...anti-semitism was actually higher in pre WW1 France than in pre WW1 Germany. That's also what Richard Evans book "The Coming of the Third Reich" says.
I often read old books at archive,org....and one of the very interesting books was from 1913 called "Men Around the Kaiser"...it profiles about 30 men like the crown Prince, Bethmann Hollweg, Ballin, etc...
They also have some good books on Alsace by men like Blumenthal, Abbe Wetterle.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel I will have to read them thanks for those refrences.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel The Blumenthal book has to be taken with the grain of salt of a man who was writing with motive. I am not familiar with Wetterle. No doubt part of that is I am limited to English sources as I can't read German at all, and my French is poor. Ironic being that I majored in Modern German History...It is also difficult to get primary material in the US.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
Now both the French parliamentarians of 1871 and the German parlimentarians were elected by universal suffrage...one man one vote.
So if men like Blumenthal and Wetterle were being elected to the German Reichstag even after 40 years of German rule in Alsace...and even after some 500,000 German settlers had moved into Alsace and 600,000 French had fled to France....that tells me that Alsatians were pro-French despite them speaking a German patois language.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Only a small percentage of the population could actually vote, or did. You have to expect that many of them would have been men who owned property and were established. Questionable people get elected all the time and it really only take a small dedicated minority to do it quite often. Look no further than the US.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
Both the wetterle book and the Blumenthal book are in English and can be downloaded for free into PDF at archive,org
I also read "Alsace-Lorraine under German rule" by Charles Hazen from 1917. and "The Question of Alsace-Lorraine " by Jules Duhem from 1918.
When the Kaiser visited Mulhouse in 1913 he was greeted with French flags which were illegal.
Then there is the famous Saverne affair of November 1913.
Mulhouse, Colmar, Strasbourg, Saverne...that's most of Alsace
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Cool. I will look into them. I have studied the military and diplomatic aspects far more than the domestic over the years.
The Saverne affair really underlined the general domestic problems in Germany. It was an extreme example, but citizens throughout the Empire had issues with Prussia and the Military. That Alsace was run directly made it an obvious focal point for such an issue to arise.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
There is a book entirely on the Saverne affair at amazon called "The Zabern affair 1913-1914" by Richard Mackey from 1991.
Voting in the German Empire was open to all men 25 years old. However representation in the Reichstag was not accurate because they didn't reapportion districts. So for example Berlin 's number of reps did not increase much between 1871 and 1914 even though it's population tripled. So the poor and middle class were under represented in the Reichstag.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
The Versailles Treaty gets a lot bad press but the reality is that they tried very hard to be fair to Germany.
The reparation bill of 32 billion 1919 US dollars was not excessive. They charged Germany for about 30% of the allied cost of the war...mainly the pensions for widows and orphans, and the cost to rebuild N France and Belgium.
They did not charge Germany for Allied soldier's salaries, uniforms, bullets or tanks or airplanes. They only charged for damage done
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel BNo it wasn't it was notorious for harsh punishment. Don't belive shit like that.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
Versailles was a mess and certainly meant to break Germany. However, its a myth that the treaty itself and the Reparations were responsible for the plight of the early 20's and the rise of Nazism. It was only a symbol as far as that was concerned.
More than the reps, the damage to shipping and transport was excessive. Further, the manner in which the Germans were handled was atrocious. They were basically forced to sign in the same manner in which Serbia had been expected to with the Ultimatum.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Why were the German colonies all seized in the VT? well, Japan wanted compensation for its blood and treasure spent in the war....so Japan got all the German colonies north of the equator.
New Zealand and Australia suffered big losses and so they got all the German colonies south of the equator. They demanded compensation.
South Africa wanted compensation for its losses. Britain took German East Africa so it could complete the Cairo to CapeTown railroad.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Well yeah Germany shouldn't have colonies that was a fair decision that Germans didn't care about either.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
I don't think the Kaiser ever wanted Germany to be reduced to just 65% of its 1914 size and clearly he never would have anticipated anything like Nazism rising in Germany. He actually didn't think Hitler was normal by having no wife or children.
But that is called the "Law of unintended consequences"
Yeah...archive,org is a great website...you can just download old books into PDF for free.
I have read the memoirs of the Kaiser, the Crown Prince, Bethmann Hollweg,
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel He original supportedHitlers annexation but after things started going bad he lost faith and stopped looking over the weird thinksgs about him like no wife or child. the 1938 borders after the annexation of the Sudetenland was perfect. A perfect German Border would be in my mind 1938 borders excluding non-Sudeten Bohemia-Moravia, plus Alsace (not Lorraine, Luxemburg part of the Belgian territory that was on the border like Eupen-Malmedy and mayby West Prussia. West Prussia and Dan
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Danzig would have to be protected by international law as a non military zone (both nations may move military personnel and equipment through but not into it permanently and would have to be open to both German and polish ships which was what was guaranteed in Versialles butnot upheld when Poland blocked it off and Germany pleaded with france and Britian to force them to reopen it.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Except for the fact that no one was supposed to get colonies out of all of this. The handing over of Shangtung to Japan was an absolute miscarriage, as well as the shambles left in the Middle East (separate treaty but same conference).
People went into the conference with high hopes and were subjected to short-sighted old men refusing to pay attention to the changing world, directly leading to a century of further conflict.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
In Germany's "SeptemberProgramme" of Sept 9th, 1914 they wanted to annex the French colonies.
The British actually tried to help Germany buy the Portuguese colonies before WW1 because the British knew that Germany felt her "place in the sun" was insufficient for a great power.
Japan insisted on compensation for their blood and treasure. They were critical to WW1 because they freed the British Navy to focus on the North Sea and mediteraneon...and convoy duty in the Atlantic.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Japan actually sacrificed very little. For all intents and purposes they were done in November 1914. And in return the Allies sold their other erstwhile ally, China, down the river.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
Basically everyone wanted compensation for their blood and treasure.
The USA stood to gain no territory...but it did want its massive loans to Britain, France and italy and to Russia...all paid back. Can't blame them for that. No one likes being stiffed on a loan.
Britain, France and Italy were broke in 1919..so they could only pay the USA back if they got paid from Germany.
It's sad what happened to Germany but they should have thought about that in July 1914.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Yeah but the allies should have also thought about it and let Austia-Hungary annex Serbia the Empire would collpase soon after with the mix of culture and everybody would be happy.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
The correct map of Germany is probably what Germany had after the Munich Conference but Hitler got greedy and went into prague which was clearly not German speaking.
Unfortunately the Germans were very cruel to the slavs in the east...so Germans HAD to be expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland. There was just too much anti-German animosity for them to remain in Poland or Czechoslovakia after WW2
Bismarck predicted that the German Empire would not last...he was right
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel yeah but guess what Silesia Pomerrnia and Neumark were never Polish or slavic and the Sudentne were heavily German you shouldn't expel the majority or the native peoples.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin
It's a known fact that both Roosevelt and Churchill felt that the current oder/neisse border between Germany and Poland was too far to the west. And yes the areas lost in WW2 were clearly majority German speaking.
The problem was that Russia wanted compensation for all the damage the Nais did while in Russia but Germay was broke...so they took eastern Poland which did have some Russians and Ukrainians living there.
So then Poland had to be compensated with territory
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel Yeah I know its because Russia didn't want to give up its section of Poland that it got in 1939 which is wrong and it would be a small weak country if it didn't get those territories from German i personall think german should getb those territories back and at least the Kalinningard oblast the southern half Poland can keep and the eastern part Lithuania can have.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin It is pointless now, as due to the mass migrations those places are not the same ethnically. Besides that point, like I said earlier, the entire concept of arranging countries by "nationality" is a disaster waiting to happen.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin wait what I now you are not Nazis its just a bit of Friendley bantter you dont understand the British sence of humor which is ok I guess but Hun and Kraut date back to the 17th century for Germans Bosche and Goune has since been reused.
Honestley you can call me what ever Limey Beef eatter silly sod tea drinker you just have to look at these names and laugh.
they have nothing to do with Nazism Hun Kraut just nicknames and they are not bad you could be welsh Sheep Shagger .
thebritish25 1 year ago
@thebritish25 or just a Twat.
batigol47 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin eh ha ha
Regards but yes it is just banter nothing to do with Nazism if I call A Russian Ivan or Vlad I am not insunating he his a Communist same goes for the Germans you have a rich history which I have reserched beyond the 15 years of nazism.
The Holy Roman Empire , The Tetonic Order, Otto von Bismarck the Franco-Prussian War Wiemar Republic The 2nd Riech ( German Empire) you should be proud of your nation.
thebritish25 1 year ago
@thebritish25 I am proud to be an American also 2nd Reich can be the Weimar or Imperial Germany.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin Oh your a Yanking Wanking Yankee why are you getting so upset about German nicknames then ??
I whould be more worried about American Nicknames
thebritish25 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel The real problem was that the Soviets provided them with a fait accompli. The Western Allies were not willing to utilize the men necessary to fight the Germans that far, and certainly not to keep fighting the Soviets after Germany capitulated.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
Right...everyone was tired of all the killing...and after all most non-Germans believed that Germany had started two terrible world wars, fought both in a vicious manner, AND then to top it all off had committed an unbelievable genocide against their own Jewish population.
I used to feel sorry for Germany...that's why I have read so many books on Germany. I am now comfortable with Germany's current borders. I understand why they are where they are.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel I would not say I feel badly for Germany. I feel badly for the world because Germany got a bad rap for WWI which played an enormous role in creating WWII. If Germany had been treated fairly (and keep in mind this is not just materially, but in the imaginations of people who had bought into Wilson's concepts), it is possible millions would not have perished only 20 years later. The issue is that in looking back on Imp. G modern perspective is tainted by the evil of the Nazi regime.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
The VT was criticized for the "Guilt Clause" but really there was no way around it. Germany would only lose territory and pay money if she did something wrong in July 1914. So that had to be empasized in the treaty that Germany had indeed done something very wrong in 1914.
BTW..Lichnowsky wrote a 2nd book in 1926 called "Heading for the Abyss" where he tried to explain how his personal notes got published in 1918. He gave the notes to a relative..the relative leaked them.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@TreuBlauPreussin The entire concept of nationality is modern. All of those lands had been settled and resettled and it was a ridiculous notion ever to expect a single "national" body. Look at what happened with Greece and Turkey after the War...these people had often lived in towns for centuries only to get thrown out. The problem has been repeated since, whether in Poland after WWII or Palestine or India or Yugoslavia. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing.
batigol47 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel None of those things are particularly unusual or unprecedented. The Germans up until right before the war had been very tolerant and the major change in tact did not occur until well into the war. In the meantime, you should read accounts of the French "liberating" the region.
Similar issues occurred all over Europe where a third pop was being fought over by two others: Tyrol, Poland, the Balkans etc. In general the Alsatians came out pretty well in comparison.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
I also base my opinion on Alsace by two books I read at archive,org
1. Behind the Scenes in the Reichstag by Abbe Wetterle from 1918
2. Alsace-Lorraine; A study of the relations of the two provinces to France and Germany by Daniel Blumenthal from 1917
Wetterle was the Alsatian rep in the Reichstag from 1898 to 1914. He was from Colmar
Daniel Blumenthal was the mayor of Colmar and also represented Strasbourg in the Reichstag. He was sentenced to death by the Kaiser
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel I have not read either of those sources, but I'm familiar with Blumenthal from Secondary sources. I enjoy reading contemporary accounts, but one of the more interesting things about them is to understand their motivations and perspectives from the distance of nearly a century. The issue with Blumenthal from my understanding is that discerning propaganda from reality is difficult.
batigol47 1 year ago
@batigol47
Blumenthal was sentenced to death 8 times by the Kaiser's courts(see wikipedia article on him).
I enjoy reading contemporary books at archive,org because they are like a time machine. They take you back to the emotions and views of that time.
I also read some books on the two Hague Peace Conventions. Apparently Germany refused attempts at disarmament and arbitration. I also found out that it was legal for neutrals to sell weapons to beligerants.
EdwardRommel 1 year ago
It was legal, and Holland was doing so for Germany, at least at the outset. It was part of the thinking that went into the German decision not to invade Holland. The British blockade, however disagreed and they found ways to prevent such trade.
I have only cursory knowledge of the details surrounding the Hague conventions. I don't remember the info though presumably I read some years ago. I know what they did and how it influenced policy, but not the actual negotiations involved.
batigol47 1 year ago
@EdwardRommel The didn't rebel under German rule why do the still have French there and not belong to Germany they were the same and viewed them as enemies. They did that because those wer French Alsatians dumbass. They seized [properties of deserters because their traitros the French would have dione the same.
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
@neymoura The barely entered East Prussia the Russians surrendered because German was moving slow but dure throught the Baltics and capture Riga and would take Tallinin and use that as a base to attack St. Petersburg then the would have to attack Moscow whic would be hard but the Russians at this time would never retake lost territroy and would eventually withdrwal from Galicia to Ukraine and would surrender tduy to a loss of Poland the Baltics Caucasas and Beloruss. (Caucasas to Ottomans).
TreuBlauPreussin 1 year ago
Where is the rest of this? o_O
EMILYstrawberries 1 year ago
Schlieffen is a hero
3DG24 1 year ago
What series is this?
Friedtunafish77 1 year ago
God were the Brits ever in large error going in. Cost them the empire and for what?
wanker4761 1 year ago
@wanker4761 well it was going to happen anyway as history shows us no empire lasts
UniteForgetLeftRight 1 year ago