From the Beeb (BBC, I mean, not OUR Beeb)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
I always hate these "let's set up and knock down some straw men" articles. Must be a slow news day.
Are these big myths? :unsure:
Quote9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
This one cracked me up. France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."
Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.
Maybe the strongest contender for actual myth is #9.
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Ed sez:
Play Command magazine's 1918: Storm in the West. Then go eat a dick, you worthless pussy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.
That's Ok....I didn't write it. ;)
In fact I knew that this forum would be extremely critical of it....I should have pointed that out at first. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Since it was a much more balanced conflict than WWII this is disappointing, but not that surprising given the attritional nature of trench warfare. :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Ed sez:
Play Command magazine's 1918: Storm in the West. Then go eat a dick, you worthless pussy.
Did you ever play the S&T WWI game? Pretty good game i thought. Think it may have been my first first subscription game.
WWI really needed more airpower. Especially since back then they weren't such pussies about chemical weapons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Ed sez:
Play Command magazine's 1918: Storm in the West. Then go eat a dick, you worthless pussy.
Did you ever play the S&T WWI game? Pretty good game i thought. Think it may have been my first first subscription game.
A long, long time ago. I think.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Ed sez:
Play Command magazine's 1918: Storm in the West. Then go eat a dick, you worthless pussy.
Jutland.
Quote from: Neil on January 20, 2014, 09:58:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
11. WWI is a boring war gaming subject.
Ed sez:
Play Command magazine's 1918: Storm in the West. Then go eat a dick, you worthless pussy.
Jutland.
Oh yeah. Good times.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2014, 06:40:27 PM
I always hate these "let's set up and knock down some straw men" articles. Must be a slow news day.
I agree with Methuselah.
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2014, 06:40:40 PM
Are these big myths? :unsure:
I hear them fairly often. Well the non-British specific ones anyway. The 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' is a sentiment I usually hear of the ACW or Vietnam and not WWI or WWII over here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
This one cracked me up. France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."
They were two beloved and integral provinces of the beloved Patrie. While Germany considered them Reichsland and never let them be proper parts of the Empire. Bastards.
The Versailles treaty thing being harsh is a problem of what we mean by harsh here. It was certainly moderated compared to what it could have been but the Germans felt screwed over for various reasons. In any case regardless of its harshness it was a pretty badly designed treaty with no effective method of enforcement.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2014, 10:38:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2014, 06:40:40 PM
Are these big myths? :unsure:
I hear them fairly often. Well the non-British specific ones anyway. The 'rich man's war, poor man's fight' is a sentiment I usually hear of the ACW or Vietnam and not WWI or WWII over here.
Weren't tons of young upper class lieutenants and captains gunned down during suicidal fronal assualts?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2014, 11:02:37 PM
Weren't tons of young upper class luietents and captains gunned down during suicidal fronal assualts?
That is what I understood and what the article said. I have to say I have never heard that one before but I am not over in Blighty listening to what their Commie agitators say.
Well this year will be the 100th anniversary of the war. It's honestly depressing to think about. Such a beautiful and vibrant world for so little gained.
"The First World War was neither first, nor the world, nor a war."
The 100th anniversary of the end of civilzation. I think I'll celebrate by acquiring and using atomic weapons against China.
Here's a myth about WWI: That the British operations against German colonies weren't a critical part of the war, and were just an imperial landgrab.
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2014, 12:29:22 AM
Here's a myth about WWI: That the British operations against German colonies weren't a critical part of the war, and were just an imperial landgrab.
The only strategic purpose the colonies served was as coaling stations and wireless transmitters for Germany's cruiser fleet. Since the cruiser fleet was eliminated in the first few months of the war, the colonies were meaningless.
Verdict: land grab.
What are you talking about? German cruisers were taking prizes well into the 1915, and the intensity of their operations was very much inhibited by the lack of supply and bases beyond the North Sea. Quick and effective British action against German colonies was important in preventing the disruption of the global economy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
Quote9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
This one cracked me up. France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."
Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.
Maybe the strongest contender for actual myth is #9.
Note, Germany did lose West Prussia and Posen as well as Elsass-Lothringen.
In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.
Both countries did suffer violent post war revolts, france even lost paris to rebel scum for a while. The important diffference is the psychological state of the vanquished. France had seen a Prussian army wipe it's forces quickly and march on it's capital. It had obviously lost and it had not totally mobilized in a manner that happened in WWI so there wasn't the same level of emotional ownership in the war itself by the people (fewer people asking why this peace treaty was worth a father/brother/husband/son dying for).
The Ludendorff Offensive and the subsequent surrender certainly affected the german psyche too. You have to remember, that up til the end of july the german people were under the impression that they were finally about to take paris and end the war until 3 months before the end. Hitler missed the whole thing, he got gassed thinking germany was about to win and when he recouperated germany had surrendered. The only similar situation is the Minbari at the Battle of the Line, and that is fiction.
Versailles was emotionally harsh rather than physically harsh. The Germans were humiliated without feeling themselves subdued. It wasn't just that no foreign troops were on german soil, it was that they had been winning, dreaming of annexing belgium, the ukraine and the baltics, and then, all of a sudden they surrender, must accept blame for the war, have to disarm and stay disarmed and have large chunks of their country given to others. France wished to impose physical terms as harsh as the emotional ones, going as far as to advocating a dismantling of germany.
As for the myths, they are myths in theBlackadder (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532923/Michael-Gove-blasts-Blackadder-myths-First-World-War-spread-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html) sense. Gove is a reactionary twit of gigantic proportions, but world war one is very much a war of myths. Most of the myths on Snows list are myths held by those with a passing knowledge of the era.
Quote from: Viking on January 21, 2014, 12:58:45 AM
In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.
In absolute or relative terms?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2014, 06:47:26 PM
Quote9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
This one cracked me up. France got back the two provinces it lost in the F-P, but when Germany lost them they were "only 10% of their territory" whereas when France lost them they were "two rich French provinces blah blah blah."
Gotta agree with the emerging consensus Jo Jo: this article is crap.
Maybe the strongest contender for actual myth is #9.
It's in proportion to the total economy. It severly affected France, and it had been part of France of 2-300 years. Whereas in 1918, it had been German for less than 50 years. And for Germany, it was a small part of their GDP, for France it was big, if we trust the article.
Then again, you could also say that Elsass-Lothringen had been a part of Germany for as long as there had been a Germany.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2014, 01:06:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 21, 2014, 12:58:45 AM
In terms of reparations the french reparations after the Franco-Prussian war were harsher than the versailles reparations.
In absolute or relative terms?
In relative terms. There is no comparison between an 1870s economy and a 1910s economy. Especially with the artificial inflation due to WWI.
The sums were 5 Billion gold francs vs 50 billion gold marks (exchange rate about 1.1 - 1), The german economy being many times larger than the french economy and 45 years of economic development later mean the french still had to pay a larger proportion. Another difference that must be added is that in 1871 france still had unliquidated capital reserves, something 1918 germany did not have. Actual payments may have reached as high as 20 billion gold marks when hitler cancelled the bonds in 1933.
Kay.
It still doesn't follow that Versailles was "not harsh."
Yes it does!
I meant Versailles was harsh.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2014, 11:05:05 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2014, 11:02:37 PM
Weren't tons of young upper class luietents and captains gunned down during suicidal fronal assualts?
That is what I understood and what the article said. I have to say I have never heard that one before but I am not over in Blighty listening to what their Commie agitators say.
The commie agitators are having a field day over here, spouting all those myths and a new one - "Wilhelmine Germany was more democratic than Great Britain anyway".
Which is why I quite liked the article when I read it. It is not aimed at a bunch of gaming history nerds but at the general public and is an attempt to redress the balance in the British media. Those myths are widely believed, especially by the left, they will try and define WW1 over the next few commemorative years in a way that fits their wider world view.
Like Tricky says, it's a good article aimed at a general British audience who really do believe many of these rather than a forum full of war history nerds who are far too sophesticated to. Even though I've read a couple of books on WW1, I cetainly thought that Gallipoli was largely fought by Anzac soldiers. And I think most of these are believed generally, and not just by commies or even liberals. They are embedded in popular culture through Oh What Lovely War, Blackadder etc
I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.
I don't know if I'd go this far
QuoteMany soldiers enjoyed WW1
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.
My understanding is that the British were particularly keen on giving their soldiers breaks from the front line, it was tougher for the French and abysmal (surprise, surprise) for the Russian troops.
The article qualifies between battles, so, during the Somme offensive the numbers would probably have been different, depending on progress of battle, supply situation, whether reinforcements/relief troops are available.
I'm guessing that a lot of the accounts might colored by the experience during Great Offensives which could last for weeks or months.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2014, 04:29:07 AM
I don't know if I'd go this far QuoteMany soldiers enjoyed WW1
I think Hitler had fun.
Are the Brits getting all apologetic on themselves for WW1 as the 100th anniversary comes? I read somewhere recently a remark about this - how probably the anniversary will be used to strengthen patriotic feelings in the different countries, in a "wasn`t THAT bad, and certainly not our fault!" way.
Meh, we always sit out World Wars. No commemorations in Spain.
Nothing planned as of yet AFAIK in Portugal for WWI but then the country entered the war in 1916, border clashes with Germany in Africa notwithstanding.
Quote from: Tamas on January 21, 2014, 05:03:19 AM
Are the Brits getting all apologetic on themselves for WW1 as the 100th anniversary comes? I read somewhere recently a remark about this - how probably the anniversary will be used to strengthen patriotic feelings in the different countries, in a "wasn`t THAT bad, and certainly not our fault!" way.
I think its being approached with a degree of nostaligia (a lost world of Dowton Abbey) and sadness for all who died. WW1 doesn't stir any vestige of patriotism in he UK in the way that WW2 still does. Its anthem is Nimrod rather than the Dambusters.
While WWI seems to have been a bloody waste of time, I sort of agree with Foch and Ferguson, it was one conflict with a 20 year ceasefire. After the two world wars no positive rational arguments existed for autocracy or fascism. Once it was all over those ideas were dead. The divine right of kings was gone. The idea of "my country right or wrong" was gone. Ideas mattered, not blood and land.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2014, 01:48:14 AM
I meant Versailles was harsh.
I guess I don't get it. The 14 points made it clear they were going to lose both Alsace Lorraine and territory to Poland, which they did. The other main thing were the reparations which Germany never really paid anyway. What made it harsh? The surprise loss of land to neutral Denmark? The loss of the colonies? The limitations on their armed forces?
Well, the Germans were forced to speak English with an accent in most movies after Versailles. Plus, the whole lederhosen as a national identity thing was pretty unbearable.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2014, 10:09:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2014, 01:48:14 AM
I meant Versailles was harsh.
I guess I don't get it. The 14 points made it clear they were going to lose both Alsace Lorraine and territory to Poland, which they did. The other main thing were the reparations which Germany never really paid anyway. What made it harsh? The surprise loss of land to neutral Denmark? The loss of the colonies? The limitations on their armed forces?
The occupation of the Rhineland was pretty harsh. IIRC it was sine die until the Hague Conference reduced reparations and the Allies left, and then Germany wasn't allowed to man its own western border until it remilitarized it unilaterally.
Ultimately the Versailles arrangement was untennable. The "appeasement" was imho an acceptance of how bad Versailles was and an (ultimately misguided) effort to reach a workable arrangement without resorting to yet another war, as it ultimately happened.
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
The occupation of the Rhineland was pretty harsh. IIRC it was sine die until the Hague Conference reduced reparations and the Allies left, and then Germany wasn't allowed to man its own western border until it remilitarized it unilaterally.
Ultimately the Versailles arrangement was untennable. The "appeasement" was imho an acceptance of how bad Versailles was and an (ultimately misguided) effort to reach a workable arrangement without resorting to yet another war, as it ultimately happened.
The occupation of the Rhineland part of the Armistice and not the treaty.
Versailles was a bad and untenable treaty. That is true. But that is a separate issue from its harshness.
I don't see how giving Germany Czechoslovakia was acceptance of that though. That was more of an acceptance of the fact Germany was strong and they were weak.
Versailles revisionists need to floss my ass hair.
WW1 is way too important to the psyche of too many people for any real mythbusting.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2014, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 10:40:49 AM
The occupation of the Rhineland was pretty harsh. IIRC it was sine die until the Hague Conference reduced reparations and the Allies left, and then Germany wasn't allowed to man its own western border until it remilitarized it unilaterally.
Ultimately the Versailles arrangement was untennable. The "appeasement" was imho an acceptance of how bad Versailles was and an (ultimately misguided) effort to reach a workable arrangement without resorting to yet another war, as it ultimately happened.
The occupation of the Rhineland part of the Armistice and not the treaty.
Versailles was a bad and untenable treaty. That is true. But that is a separate issue from its harshness.
I don't see how giving Germany Czechoslovakia was acceptance of that though. That was more of an acceptance of the fact Germany was strong and they were weak.
That was later, and yes, that was cowardice. But stuff like reducing the reparations, sitting out as Germany occupied the Rhineland, even the Anschlüss (as it was portrayed as a sovereign decision of the Austrians, not too dissimilar to the votes that dismembered the A-H empire) were "reasonable". The problem was, imho, that Eden and Co never recognized that they were offering sincere concessions to an insincere negotiatior.
Wot's all this about commie agitators?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2014, 04:31:32 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.
My understanding is that the British were particularly keen on giving their soldiers breaks from the front line, it was tougher for the French and abysmal (surprise, surprise) for the Russian troops.
I would imagine that this is also related to the relative levels of activity on the front lines. The British Army, as far as I am aware, was much more active at the small unit scale than the French and Russian armies outside of major offensives (trench raids, surprise bombardments, patrols into no-man's land etc.)
If you're active in that fashion you're going to need pulling out more often for R & R and for training.
Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.
Why am I not surprised?
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.
What this "paper" omit is that what we conceive as "hell in the trenches" was throughly exact, but mostly for the French. One of the big reasons many elements of the French Army mutinied in 1917 was that the same units were sent over and over again over the top for incomprehensible objectives and that common troops were given no leave nor any break from the frontline by being sent back in support lines. Any who dared to complain was officially deemed - and treated as - a coward.
Britain couldn't afford to treat its Pals' troops like cannon fodder; the French could.
It took Petain's nomination after the munities to help calm the situation, with a few executions here and there
pour l'exemple. He was smart enough to recognize treating their soldiers as if they were already dead was stupid, and he recommended a system of rotations for frontline units, and leaves for soldiers.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 21, 2014, 12:00:23 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2014, 04:31:32 AM
Quote from: celedhring on January 21, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
I wasn't aware of the trenches thing myself. I mean, I knew that they didn't spend months and months in them like it seems in the movies, but not as little as 10 days per month as the article says. And I am pretty sure that coming from the depiction in films and TV, most people do believe this myth.
My understanding is that the British were particularly keen on giving their soldiers breaks from the front line, it was tougher for the French and abysmal (surprise, surprise) for the Russian troops.
I would imagine that this is also related to the relative levels of activity on the front lines. The British Army, as far as I am aware, was much more active at the small unit scale than the French and Russian armies outside of major offensives (trench raids, surprise bombardments, patrols into no-man's land etc.)
If you're active in that fashion you're going to need pulling out more often for R & R and for training.
I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare. After Tannenberg I mean.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 21, 2014, 03:41:30 PM
I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare. After Tannenberg I mean.
Two words : Brusilov Offensive. Russia effectively broke the Austrian-Hungarian Army's arms and legs in 1916, and heavily contributed to Germany ending the push on Verdun as well.
IIRC wasn't there some kind of proto-trench warfare in place against the Austrians?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 21, 2014, 03:41:30 PM
I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare. After Tannenberg I mean.
Everybody dug trenches as a matter of course. You couldn't survive long in WWI without them. The Eastern Front was just a lot more fluid than the Western.
The Germans first tested and perfected their strosstruppen tactics on the Eastern Front.
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2014, 03:33:03 PM
Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.
Why am I not surprised?
How is that a myth? I don't think anybody believes that. After all the war broke out primarily due to the Austria-Hungary and Russia rivalry in the Balkans and all the difficulties that came with that. Certain very scholarly historians hold Germany primarily responsible, and make good points, but even then they do not claim they are solely responsible. 'Guilty' is a weird concept in this case anyway. Like trying to figure out who is guilty of the Punic Wars or something.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 21, 2014, 03:41:30 PM
I didn't think the Russians lasted long enough to get into trench warfare. After Tannenberg I mean.
Erm...huh? Tannenberg was the first major battle in a conflict that lasted over three years.
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
Well, the Germans were forced to speak English with an accent in most movies after Versailles. Plus, the whole lederhosen as a national identity thing was pretty unbearable.
Little known point 15. Germany had to start importing French beer. That, in and of itself, was harsh.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2014, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2014, 03:33:03 PM
Odd (or not odd at all) that this "paper" leaves out the greatest WW1 myth of all, that Germany and Kaiser Wilhelm are the sole guilty party responsible for the outbreak of the war.
Why am I not surprised?
How is that a myth? I don't think anybody believes that. After all the war broke out primarily due to the Austria-Hungary and Russia rivalry in the Balkans and all the difficulties that came with that. Certain very scholarly historians hold Germany primarily responsible, and make good points, but even then they do not claim they are solely responsible. 'Guilty' is a weird concept in this case anyway. Like trying to figure out who is guilty of the Punic Wars or something.
That might be the case in a place like this, but I bet that if you were to ask around - even in a country that was neutral in the conflict - most people would say that Germans were the bad guys, even if it's just WWII bleeding into the concept most people have of pre-1946 Germany.
I'm of the opinion that most Great Powers were looking for a good rumble, even if the Balkan situation had been defused we would have got a WWI at a later stage.
Wilhelmine Germany was a rapidly rising power with a bumptious idiot at the controls. If only they had had the tech to keep Bismarck alive and Chancellor indefinetely.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Wilhelmine Germany was a rapidly rising power with a bumptious idiot at the controls. If only they had had the tech to keep Bismarck alive and Chancellor indefinetely.
QuoteShould you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German.
Rousing stuff.
Vicky shoulda fed her grandson a poisoned candy at Christmas. ;)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Wilhelmine Germany was a rapidly rising power with a bumptious idiot at the controls. If only they had had the tech to keep Bismarck alive and Chancellor indefinetely.
When he had to make a choice he chose to continue the alliance with Austria rather than Russia. Not the greatest foreign policy decision.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2014, 05:16:56 PM
How is that a myth? I don't think anybody believes that. After all the war broke out primarily due to the Austria-Hungary and Russia rivalry in the Balkans and all the difficulties that came with that. Certain very scholarly historians hold Germany primarily responsible, and make good points, but even then they do not claim they are solely responsible. 'Guilty' is a weird concept in this case anyway. Like trying to figure out who is guilty of the Punic Wars or something.
The myth is right there in the Versailles Treaty. Remember, Germany was forced to sign this.
Quote
Art. 231
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
We might know it was more than that, but for the common Frenchman and the common Briton on the street taking his or her history lesson from
Historia or the BBC, if asked who's responsible for World War One most if not all of them will answer Germany.
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2014, 06:41:03 PM
We might know it was more than that, but for the common Frenchman and the common Briton on the street taking his or her history lesson from Historia or the BBC, if asked who's responsible for World War One most if not all of them will answer Germany.
I doubt it.
I'd say the opposite. Most people would say no-one was really to blame and how sad it all was (the pity of war). It's more of an academic view to blame Germany (or anyone else).
That may be different in France.
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2014, 06:15:25 PM
Vicky shoulda fed her grandson a poisoned candy at Christmas. ;)
Queen Victoria was always nice with her first grandson, and Wilhelm rushed to be at her bedside when she died. If in real life, however, Vicky the mother had offered her son candy for Christmas, Willy would have made her taste it first.
It was notorious that there was no love lost between adult Wilhelm and his mother, in part because of Bismarck yes but in no smaller part because of Vicky herself, her stern and harsh parenting vision, and her anti-Prussian. It's no secret that the extreme love-hate relationship between Wilhelm and Britain stems from his twisted relations with his mother.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 21, 2014, 05:54:44 PM
Wilhelmine Germany was a rapidly rising power with a bumptious idiot at the controls. If only they had had the tech to keep Bismarck alive and Chancellor indefinetely.
The Kaiser wasn't an idiot, (though the Czar very well may have been), he was simply ill-suited for the job he had. He was considered by his contemporaries to be quite intelligent, unfortunately he was also neurotic, arrogant, and erratic. He worked very hard to keep an alliance with Russia, but the allure of the French alliance was to great to pass up for the Russians.
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2014, 06:52:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 21, 2014, 06:15:25 PM
Vicky shoulda fed her grandson a poisoned candy at Christmas. ;)
Queen Victoria was always nice with her first grandson, and Wilhelm rushed to be at her bedside when she died. If in real life, however, Vicky the mother had offered her son candy for Christmas, Willy would have made her taste it first.
It was notorious that there was no love lost between adult Wilhelm and his mother, in part because of Bismarck yes but in no smaller part because of Vicky herself, her stern and harsh parenting vision, and her anti-Prussian. It's no secret that the extreme love-hate relationship between Wilhelm and Britain stems from his twisted relations with his mother.
There was a documentary on a night or two ago, where they went into a bit of detail on Queen Victoria's relationship with her kids; it seems she was incredibly emotionally needy and self-centred. In other words, Vicky's relationship with her mother seems pretty similar to Wilhelm's relationship with his.
Kind of funny how individual family bullshit can be passed along the generations, and how it can have significant consequences from time to time.
I liked the Kaiser. He had a fabulous hat.
Starting on the biography of Edward VII, I'm getting the distinct impression that Victoria was a right cunt.
Quote from: Drakken on January 21, 2014, 06:41:03 PM
Quote
Art. 231
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
So there were losses to Allied and associate governments Germany and her allies were not responsible for? And yes if Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, had backed off from attacking Serbia once Russia threatened to mobilize there would have been no war. But seriously though so what? Attitudes on all sorts of things have changed since 1919.
QuoteWe might know it was more than that, but for the common Frenchman and the common Briton on the street taking his or her history lesson from Historia or the BBC, if asked who's responsible for World War One most if not all of them will answer Germany.
Germany might very well be the country most responsible, many people believe so. But sole responsible party is something else. Each of the major powers had a role to play except perhaps the British. If the French and the Germans had just pulled their heads out of their asses at some point between 1860 and 1933 and realized they were natural allies none of it would have probably gone down.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 21, 2014, 07:18:53 PM
I liked the Kaiser. He had a fabulous hat.
That mustache was pretty awesome as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2014, 07:20:07 PM
Starting on the biography of Edward VII, I'm getting the distinct impression that Victoria was a right cunt.
Every relationship in her life was weird. Maybe that just comes with her weird job but man every relationship from her parents to her husband to her kids were all a little off.
I don't really see France and Germany as natural allies in the era of Great Powers.
Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2014, 10:45:37 PM
Germany might very well be the country most responsible, many people believe so. But sole responsible party is something else. Each of the major powers had a role to play except perhaps the British. If the French and the Germans had just pulled their heads out of their asses at some point between 1860 and 1933 and realized they were natural allies none of it would have probably gone down.
Britain and Germany I could see, but France and Germany? :yeahright:
Britain and Germany make even less sense than France and Germany.
Germany was a continental power with continental interests that directly clashed with the other nations on the European mainland. Unlike Britian it did not need control of the sea lanes and an extensive colonial empire to be prosperous.
Britain's interest was in trade, and Germany was her number one competitor. The Empire wasn't where Britain's wealth was. Britain's wealth was creatd because they were the gatekeeper and the lubricant for the global economy. Almost half the world's shipping was on British-flaggeed ships, and the insurance and credit that made it possible for goods to be transported was run out of London. Moreover, Britain had a vital interest in ensuring that nobody controlled the entire northwestern coastline of Europe.
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2014, 11:50:24 PM
Moreover, Britain had a vital interest in ensuring that nobody controlled the entire northwestern coastline of Europe.
Why? I am curious to know more.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 22, 2014, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2014, 11:50:24 PM
Moreover, Britain had a vital interest in ensuring that nobody controlled the entire northwestern coastline of Europe.
Why? I am curious to know more.
Because if someone controlled all that territory they could effectively lock Britain out of European markets. It's always been the British way to keep the European powers balanced against each other.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 22, 2014, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2014, 11:50:24 PM
Moreover, Britain had a vital interest in ensuring that nobody controlled the entire northwestern coastline of Europe.
Why? I am curious to know more.
Port Capacity for invading Britain.
:blush:
Napoleon famously said that owning Antwerp was like pointing a pistol at the heart of Britain.
Indeed. Not only are the Low Countries full of ports that would be of immense use in staging an invasion of Britain, but they also control the mouths of many of the rivers that formed the highway for trade in Western and Central Europe.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2014, 11:40:54 PM
Unlike Britian it did not need control of the sea lanes and an extensive colonial empire to be prosperous.
But it wanted to, and damned fast.
Gee...a power with immense economic growth that accelerated exponentially within the span of a few short decades, imbued with a sudden extrovert nationalism, shackled by geography with an almost irrational desire to match what it sees as its greatest rival as a blue water navy with global reach in a few short years, creating a naval arms race without learning the discipline and from the mistakes that come with decades of experience?
What could happen?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchineseposters.net%2Fimages%2Fe13-903.jpg&hash=4c2e5deeefc163ea33f550b099736f15a2b43fc6)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 22, 2014, 07:23:34 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2014, 11:40:54 PM
Unlike Britian it did not need control of the sea lanes and an extensive colonial empire to be prosperous.
But it wanted to, and damned fast.
Gee...a power with immense economic growth that accelerated exponentially within the span of a few short decades, imbued with a sudden extrovert nationalism, shackled by geography with an almost irrational desire to match what it sees as its greatest rival as a blue water navy with global reach in a few short years, creating a naval arms race without learning the discipline and from the mistakes that come with decades of experience?
What could happen?
Yeah, but Germany wasn't building all of Blighty's computers. :P