When did you realize that Germany was the victim of an extermination campaign by the other powers in WW1
From my own work on the subject
>Austria’s decision to formally annex the territory, which was ratified and approved by a committee of the European powers, and also formally recognized by the Serbian government, angered many Serbians because it represented a deliberate attempt by the Hapsburg Empire to prevent pan-Slavic nationalism, and crushed all hopes of uniting with the Bosnian Serbs. Because of this, despite the Serbian government’s promise “to conform to the decision of the powers relative to Bosnia” (Allen 206), it did nothing to discourage anti-Austrian propaganda or eliminate nationalist groups that targeted Austrian territorial integrity. For this reason and other, when Serb nationalists murdered the Archduke and his wife, the Austrians and the Germans viewed it as great insult to Austro-Hungarian power and integrity and as the most grievous offense in a long series of transgressions
>Therefore, when the Austrians issued their ultimatum to the Serbian government, the German empire wholeheartedly supported the decision without even knowing the actual contents of the demand. In a message about the ultimatum to all the European powers the Austrians explained their frustrations that “observing a benevolent attitude towards the political interests of Serbia… [hoping] that [Serbia] would finally decide to follow an analogous line of conduct on its own side” (Allen 210) had produced no results
>Germany was fulfilling her obligation to her ally, who was moved to such drastic action “by the instinct of self-preservation” (Allen 211). Austria feared that if the pan-Slavic movements continued, Serbia would demand Croatia, and should they succeed in acquiring it, The Hapsburg empire would be surrounded on three sides by nations which all had claim to her territory. This, coupled with Italian demands, would leave Austria-Hungary without sea access
>the German chancellor asked his diplomats to convey his message to the various European powers he “trusted the conflict would be ‘localized” (Edmonds 3), while the German secretary of state for foreign affairs, Herr von Jagow, “insisted that he question at issue was one for settlement between Serbia and Austria alone and that there should be no interference from outside in the discussion between these two countries” (Allen 214).
>Herr von Jagow “promised…that if relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia became more acute he was ready to fall in Sir E. Grey’s (the British foreign secretary’s) suggestion that the four powers (those not already directly involved) work together in favor of moderation at Vienna and St. Petersburg” (Allen 219) “because every intercession of another power on account of the various treaty-alliances would precipitate inconceivable consequences” (Allen 215).
>So strong was the desire for peace in the German government that it refused to mobilize its own troops in response to Russian mobilization. Austria, Serbia and Russia had already instituted mobilization, which, at the time, was tantamount to an informal declaration of war, and thus, the German Empire’s hesitancy to mobilize its own forces in response to Russian mobilization against her further demonstrates the German desire for, if not a peaceful, at least a militarily limited solution. Thus, to this end, Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote a personal letter to his cousin, Tsar Nicholas II, to cease its mobilization against Germany. When the Tsar refused, the German government demanded Russia cease all mobilization, and, to insure that should it come to war the conflict would be limited, also sent dispatches to the United Kingdom and France, asking “for an assurance of neutrality in the case that Russia should attack Austria” (Edmonds 5).
>Britain sent an ambiguous response and France replied saying she “would consult her own interests” (Edmonds 6), which is plain enough for any modern historian to see that France intended to make war on Germany to recapture the predominantly German-speaking border region of Alsace-Lorraine, which it had lost in the Franco-Prussian war some 50 years ago
>Two days after the first message, Germany asked Britain for a guarantee of neutrality, and again Britain delivered an ambiguous response. The following day, France declared general mobilization to prepare for war with Germany, in direct violation of the entente cordiale whereby “the two governments (Britain and France) agreed that if either had grave reason to suspect an unprovoked attack, or fear to general peace, they should consult and decide on future action” (Edmonds 1). Germany declared mobilization within a few minutes of the French decree; neither would learn of the other’s actions until well after the orders were given.
>The claim that regardless of selfish motivations to attack Germany, France was obligated to do so by way of its alliance with Russia is wrong, as the terms stipulated by the alliance were purely defensive, and Russia had mobilized against Germany first, and had declared war on Austria-Hungary, not the other way around.
WWI was a childish European temper tantrum and any attempt to paint any of the major powers as a ''good guy'' is just putting your bias on display. Germany and Austria wanted war to consolidate their positions, and they wanted it badly.
>When did you realize that Germany was the victim of an extermination campaign by the other powers in WW1
Could you honestly blame the other powers on this matter?
These were some of the most fiercely nationalistic times in European history, and every nation placed a great deal of value in its military power -- because it directly resulted in more colonial holdings.
So imagine everyone's butthurt when Prussian Empire springs out of thin air. British Dominion gets butthurt, France gets its title as "the greatest land superpower in the world" taken from them, et cetera.
But honestly, none of that has anything to do with how WW1 started and progressed. Germany fucked up hardcore the moment it set foot in Belgium and started ransacking the place.
It's a huge fucking blunder that Bismarc would've *never* committed.
>thus France’s decision to mobilize against Germany was purely in the spirit of conquest and the destruction of her rival. The Kaiser would later say about this aggression “England, France and Russia have agreed among themselves to wage a war of extermination against us.”
>the German Empire still maintained every effort to limit the bloodshed. Their grand strategy for defeating the French, the Schlieffen Plan, was designed to create the quickest victory over France possible by capturing Paris within a few weeks. The quicker the Germans secured victory the sooner peace could be restored, thus it was in the interest of the German government, whom from the start had tried to avoid such a conflict, to force France to capitulate by any and all means necessary.
>To prepare for this strategy the German government asked the Belgian government to allow its troops to pass through. Fearing rejection, and protecting their center, the German army occupied Luxembourg in order to take control of major railroads that led into Belgium (“Fury”). When the Belgian crown refused them entry, the Germans were forced to invade in order to defend themselves from the French and Russian aggression, simultaneously bringing the United Kingdom, which guaranteed Belgian neutrality, into the war.
>the invasion of Belgium was necessary for a German victory because if Germany had been forced to attack exclusively through Alsace-Lorraine, victory would take many months, if not years, to achieve due to the enormous border fortifications, particularly those at Verdun, which stood directly between the border and Paris
>the general staff assumed the Belgian campaign would take at most four weeks. Great Britain needed at least six weeks to deploy her army, and would therefore be a nonfactor in the campaign until the German army had passed through Belgium, and was well on its way to Paris. After victory was secured, the occupation of Belgium would end and thus the United Kingdom would make peace with Germany shortly thereafter
>This strategy was offensive only cosmetically. The true motivation behind it was to prevent a situation in which the German empire would be invaded from two sides and its people attempting to flee the conflict would be trapped between two advancing armies.
>The aggression of the German army was necessary to safeguard the German people, which is the core function of all armies.
>Germany was the envy of every nation in Europe, and Germans believed that in this war the rest of Europe and the world were opposed to them. Because of this the German people were determined to fight anywhere and everywhere. Kaiser Wilhelm II said “We shall defend ourselves to the last breath of man and horse. And we shall emerge victorious from this battle, even against a world of enemies” expressing the general sentiment in Germany held until the very end of the war, that Germany was beset on all sides by nations which envied her, and that the war was one of self-defense
>Allen, George H. The Great War: Causes and Motives. Philadelphia, George Barrie’s Sons. 1916
>Edmonds, Sir James E. A Short History of World War 1. Greenwood Publishing Co. 1968
>“Fury” Apocalypse: World War I. National Geographic. 18 March 2014. Television
>From my own work on the subject
Firstly the Germans gave the Austrians a blank cheque for backup in the July Crisis, essentially guaranteeing a wider war.
Secondly the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia effectively meant a complete surrender of sovereignty, which the Serbians would never accept, which meant the
Thirdly AH was a feudal monarchy widely despised by its subjects, their occupation of everyone outside of Austria proper was pretty illegitimate.
FOURTHLY the Germans has been spoiling for a fight ever since Kaiser Willy 2 took the throne, which the fleet build-up the Morocco crisis ect, it's pretty fucking clear to any nigga who's ever read a book that the whole Frankie F. debacle was just an excuse they seized upon to start the war they wanted.
FIFTHLY the settlement to WW1 still left Germany one of the Largest, Most populous, and most Industrially developed nations in Europe, so if it WAS an "extermination campaign" they did a pretty shit job of it.
More recent historiography likes to blame broader trends of European nationalism and militarism, and that's defiantly true, but some Nations were pretty fucking clearly more militaristic and nationalistic than other.
i find it unlikely that germany would've not taken a victory out on france like france did with the versailles treaty
you can see the ideas of german supremacy get into shape during the war with the treaty of brest-litovsk, which ultimately even harmed the german war efforts for the sake of gaining more territory
OP I mean this in the most genuine and honest way possible - if you are indeed serious, if this is a school essay, if this is an actual work you wish to publish, whether on a blog or just here - please go read more books.
The only thing childish here is your post. You are taking years, decades maybe of some of the most complex and interesting political and diplomatic development in Europe and labeling it as a 'temper tantrum'.
He's got a point to it though, the main motivation for war on all sides were literally hurt feelings
Bismarck said years before that he won't sacrifice the bones of a single pomerian musketeer for some thing in the balkans
When she began to almost highhandedly finance and support the Bolshevik movement,you know the one which caused immeasurable human losses in Europe and Asia,when she began to use nerve gas on the front lines and when she caused the death of more than 10 million people for literally nothing.
And then Andrassy responded by saying that the blood of hundreds of thousands of Balkanites and Hungarians was spilt to create the Europe in which he lives,breaths and insults.Fat fuck literally went silent after that.
>He's got a point to it though, the main motivation for war on all sides were literally hurt feelings
Are you trying to say that honoring a treaty after a neutral country is invaded is 'hurt feelings'?
Are you trying to say that being invaded despite trying to avoid war is 'hurt feelings'?
I could sort of see the actions of A-H being construed as 'hurt feelings' but even then, it was ultimately power projection, geopolitics, focusing on an external solution to internal problems chiefly and not 'hurt feelings' which led them to war.
2 whole authors and you didnt even get past page 6 on one of them
wew lad, this isn't good historical engagement.
Schlieffen's plan could have worked had the Bavarians read the manual.
If the Bavarians hadn't brought the French advance to a complete halt, then Joffre could have never relocated the troops in time and Paris would have been taken.
>Allen, George H. The Great War: Causes and Motives. Philadelphia, George Barrie’s Sons. 1916
So the book basically covers all the political shit that happened before the war? I'll read it
Germany wanted this war in order to strike down France and Russia before Russia completed her "Great Program" of military build-up and rail expansion. As far as the the Germans were concerned the July crisis was the last chance to do this with a justifiable cause before Russia's army was not only vastly larger but more importantly could mobilize at a similar pace to the Germans. If anyone should take the blame for Germany's defeat it's Germany for escalating the crisis by egging Austria on.
>AH was a feudal monarchy widely despised by its subjects
>create a huge Empire dedicaced to invade the other powers
>start the first World War of History
>cry when the European powers try to limitate their powers
Prussianfags really piss me off.
If there's anything about the Versailles treaty, it's that it was not harsh enough.
We should have completly destroyed Germany. We should have annexed its territories and completly destroyed its national identity. We should have made sure that it was unable to ever build an army.
If we had done that, there would have been no WW2.
>We should have annexed its territories
>We should have made sure that it was unable to ever build an army
But both of those things were done and it was a huge cause for World War II.
>But both of those things were done and it was a huge cause for World War II.
Not really, it was similar to what happened to France after the Franco-Prussian war.
They didn't go to the extreme of balkanizing Germany
Okay, first of all Austria-Hungary was not "feudal", that implies backwardness, serfdom and knights in shining armor and is misleading. Austria-Hungary was perfectly stable before the war began, and had a booming economy (growing slightly faster than France, Britain, or Germany) and scientific and cultural life. While Franz Joseph was too old-fashioned for his own good (despite being very popular) the heirs (such as Franz Ferdinand, as you mentioned) were perfectly willing and ready to make efforts towards modernization.
A-H was killed by a poor military performance, being stuck with an early 19th century monarch at the worst possible time, and Woodrow Wilson's idealism. The war weakened the empire to the point where leftist nationalist groups were able to enforce their demands with allied support, but this by no means indicates that these nationalist groups had majority support in most of the areas they rose in. Before the war the vast majority of nationalities supported autonomy instead of independence.
I am not going to comment on Austrian or German war guilt, as I lean pretty heavily towards blaming them, but "Austria-Hungary was a backwards doomed to fail 15th century remnant" is a unfair, misleading statement that people like to make with 20/20 retrospective hindsight.
The war reparations, troop limits, and territorial losses of France then are nowhere near comparable to those of Germany after Versailles. It does not justify future German action but even observers at the time knew that such harsh terms would lead to another war.
they didn't do it properly which highlights the whole situation
>alright let's war I'm bored anyway
>whoa that was horrible
>just promise you won't seek revenge and we can stop
>surely no one is insane enough to start this same thing again
if they had actually made effort for peace originally the attacker would have looked like a giant faggot and everyone would have learned. leaving an angry defeated nation capable of producing stuff in some effort to be reasonable just failed to contain the damage.
>The war reparations, troop limits, and territorial losses of France then are nowhere near comparable to those of Germany after Versailles.
Not completely true. Prussia occupied half of France, including Paris, until reparations of 5 billion francs were paid in 5 years and they lost Alsace-Lorraine. Germany did have to pay reparations but they were tied with their ability to pay, and yes they did lose more territory but that had more to do with the fact those territories had large non-German populations.
>It does not justify future German action but even observers at the time knew that such harsh terms would lead to another war.
While others observed they were not harsh enough. Versailles was both too mild and too harsh at the same time.
It was harsh enough to fuck up Germany and humiliate them but not harsh enough to prevent Germany rising up. Ever heard of the "this is not peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years." quote? That was regarding the Versailles being to mild, not to harsh.
>Implying those aren't just the most relevant sections of large books ie the rest of the books are either historical context that is common knowledge and thus does not need citations or is talking about Japan or some shit
>implying I didn't just use the books for quotes because most of that shit is well known by anyone with a brain
>implying I didn't just cherry pick the most pertainent sections
>historical context that is common knowledge and thus does not need citations
never, ever, do this
>dude Germany is the victim
I'm all for more revisionist approaches the war, but portraying ANYONE as the victim of the First World War is just pathetic.
>literally no valuable terra incognita left
>European power(s) can't become greater in the world unless at the expense of another
>dudes lets ally lmao
>everyone wants a slice of the Franco-British hegemony
If you think that these European powers couldn't have sorted out peace during any point of the opening moves of the war you don't belong on this board because you're destined to continue spouting utter shit and irrelevancies about this war. It had NOTHING to do with minor conflicts and EVERYTHING to do with the balance of power.