• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do people think of Germany as the bad guy in WWI?

M

Martin

Lifer
I can understand people thinking of them as the bad guys in WWII (after all, they were!!), but I don't see it that way for WWI.


WWI was more or less two sides fighting, neither of them good nor bad.
 
WWI ended when everyone just got tired of fighting. It was a pointless war brought about by the assasination of one leader and crazy alliances.
 
I thought the war started in the balkans. I think the Germans sided with the Austrians and the Russians with the Serbs. When Duke Ferdinand what's his name was assassinated by a Serb, everyone took sides and all hell broke loose.
 
uh.. my history class did a huge big court case with the different countries that "started the war" it was actually a LOT of countries faults... everyone was teh bad guy... right on down to the US... Germany, austria-hungry, britain, france, russia, serbia and a few others that i cant name right now 😀 but yeah... everyone was the bad guy in this one .. there was direct proof that each of those countries did something to start the war or increase it..
 
The short term cause of it came through the assination of a leader in Austria-Hungary and through the Triple Alliance and Triple Entante. The long term causes came from the geography,i.e. Russia having no warm water port, and some other things. Yes the Germans started the war with the Von Schlofflen(sp?) plan and trying to invade France through Belgium.
 
Germany was in no way the bad guy of the war. They did have to take blame for it though. I would personally blame Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Serbia. If Austria-Hungary hadn't taken part of Serbia, Archduke Ferdinand wouldn't have been shot. Then Russia started mobilizing its troops on the German border, which wasn't exactly the smartest move.
 
The U.S. was smart not to make an official alliance with the British.....and the U.S. made money selling supplies and arms to both sides....before joining the war.
 


<< The short term cause of it came through the assination of a leader in Austria-Hungary and through the Triple Alliance and Triple Entante. The long term causes came from the geography,i.e. Russia having no warm water port, and some other things. Yes the Germans started the war with the Von Schlofflen(sp?) plan and trying to invade France through Belgium. >>



Russia had ports on the black sea, although no very direct, still good.


In all fairness it was the Triple Alliance that started the war. Serbs killed Francis Ferdinand and then when Austro-Hungary declared war on them, russia steped it, then germany steped in, then france, then .....well....you get the point.


The German plan had little to do with starting the war. By the time they implemented it, everryone had declared war on everyone else (ecept britain.)
 
Germany didnt want any agression? why'd they send a telegram to mexico and tell em to attack the US? and why'd they bust through belgium and rape france.... please... i can list more if necessary... just gotta find my notes
 


<< The German plan had little to do with starting the war. By the time they implemented it, everryone had declared war on everyone else (ecept britain.) >>



Correct the plan itself did not start the war. What I was stating was that through the when the plan was exucuted that marked the start of the war.
 
The real cause of the war was German aggression, specifically Austro-Hungarian expansion into the Balkans. Austria-Hungary was ruled mostly by ethnic Germans at the time, and was a close ally of Germany. The Germans wanted to annex territory (i.e. create vassal states) all the way to the Middle East.
 
Britain wouldn't of entered the war if Germany hadn't of invaded Belgium. Britain said it'd protect Belgium's neutrality, and the Germans still invaded it.
 


<< Britain wouldn't of entered the war if Germany hadn't of invaded Belgium. Britain said it'd protect Belgium's neutrality, and the Germans still invaded it. >>



True but which seems like a better move, going straight towards the enemy where they are expecting you or come from the side and catch them offguard? Germany wanted to finish off France as fast as they could so they could take out Russia. In doing so they gained Britain as their enemy.
 
I am pretty sure they were the bad guys in ww1, didn't they break the peace treaty (invade some country like bulgaria or something like that and violate the protection pact that england had signed with that country)
 
The plan was a part of Germany's militarism. All of the nations knew something was gonna happen for years. Tension was high, so they all started building up their armies. Once Russia and Germany started at it, the Germans attacked France, because they knew that they'd help out the Russians.
 
WWI was everyone's fault and no-one's. Basically it's a very good example of why alliances can be a very bad thing. I recal a quote from a German military official near the start of WWI, "We have teathered ourselves to a corpse." He was referring to the fact that Germany was bound to honor its alliance with Austria-Hungary.

ZV
 


<< I am pretty sure they were the bad guys in ww1, didn't they break the peace treaty (invade some country like bulgaria or something like that and violate the protection pact that england had signed with that country) >>



It wasn't really an invasion, more like a detour. There was never a peace treaty with Belgium (I'm assuming you're referring to that). It was an unwritten rule of war that you never invade a neutral country. Germany went through Belgium to surprise France. Some Belgians fought back and some were killed. Britain didn't like that and declared war on Germany. I don't really see how that makes them the bad guy though.
 
Gavrillo Princip was the guy who assassinated Duke Ferdinard. Wow, I actually remember something from my history class 😀
 
I still consider the germans to be the bad guys in WWI. Just look at wolfenstein...and even return to castle wolfenstein
 


<< uh.. my history class did a huge big court case with the different countries that "started the war" it was actually a LOT of countries faults... everyone was teh bad guy... right on down to the US... Germany, austria-hungry, britain, france, russia, serbia and a few others that i cant name right now 😀 but yeah... everyone was the bad guy in this one .. there was direct proof that each of those countries did something to start the war or increase it.. >>



i did that too in 10th grade world history. it was fun 🙂
 
It's been a while but let me try to refresh my memory.

I don't blame Germany alone and blame bits to all countries involved in the war.

Russia: warm water seaports, encouraged Serbs to declare independence, promised support
Balkan area: series of smaller-scale wars and conflicts, assassination of the Duke Ferdinand
Austria-Hungary: problems with the multi-ethnic nature of the state, interests in the ports along the Adriatic Sea
Germany: The Schlieffen Plan, Naval Race against Britain, promise of a "blank cheque" to Austria, under-estimation of the Russian troops, interests in Tunisia and other oversea colonies, German subs that were partly responsible for the war in the Turkey area
France: Franco-Prussian War and their obsession with the return of Alsace and Lorraine, conflicts in Tunisia against Germany
Britain: naval race against Germany

Japan also partially contributed to the conflict, although Asia is rarely discussed for the Great War. I recall that Japan and various European powers had conflicting interests with various parts of China and Korea. i.e. Russo-Japanese War (conflict between Japan and Russia), conflicts over Japan's gain of Taiwan as part of a treaty, etc.

And last but not least, there are the Zimmerman Telegram and the crazy formation of various alliances.
 
With regards to the Zimmerman telegram: that was a fake perpetrated by the British to get the Americans to enter the war with the Allies. The idea of Mexico invading the US was about as ludicrous then as it is now.

With regards to German ans Austro-Hungarian agression in the Balkans: Serbia did in fact have knowledge of the assasination attempt and thus did commit an act of war against Austro-Hungary.

With regards to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality: Well, yeah they did do that, but it almost worked. And besides, the British showed much less concern for neutrality when they invaded neutral Greece and deposed the pro-German king.

All-in-all, I can't give Germany the lion's share of the blame for starting the war.
 


<< t wasn't really an invasion, more like a detour. There was never a peace treaty with Belgium (I'm assuming you're referring to that). It was an unwritten rule of war that you never invade a neutral country. Germany went through Belgium to surprise France. Some Belgians fought back and some were killed. Britain didn't like that and declared war on Germany. I don't really see how that makes them the bad guy though. >>




not quite, after napoleon was defeated for the second time in 1815, the dutch lobbied to other nations (more specifically england) to make a nation great enough to hold france within it's borders, in 1830, belgium kicked out the dutch, and wanted independance.

england saw a golden opportunity to eliminate an economical foe, because at that time, the dutch had a huge fleet, and were a naval empire, belgium on the other hand was one of the most important industrial centers of the continent, so by dividing them, england suddenly had a much brighter future to supply their own products.

So belgium became independant with the support of england, but in the agreement on the independance, belgium was forced to stay unallied, they were strictly forbidden to enter an alliance (that rule was removed after ww1), and england promised they'd defend belgium if the independence was comprimised.

basically, england was forced to enter ww1, because it wanted to eliminate an economical foe 80 years earlier.

a part of belgium in the south west stayed free throughout the war, initially by the belgium army, and later enforced by french and english soldiers. Also the reason there are an ungodly amount of english wargraves there. Germans had just as much wargraves, but those were mostly removed, one of the disavantages of losing a war i guess.

Aelus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top