Are the Germans really the bad guys.

[The East Marches II]

It was Serb terrorists backed by Serbian intelligence who started the war. I'm glad you subscribe to the meme that Austria Hungary and Germany were villains for acting will within their rights to an act of war by a hostile nation. 10/10

True to form; the Russians backed their pet in an amazing display of gangster like behavior. The war is really on Russia for its pan-European flavor.

You are right the biggest instigators lost the war. I hope the suffering of the Serbs was worth it. It's amazing that Gavrilo is viewed as hero today.

It was an act of complete lunacy, and a crime against civilization, to deliberately take the course of action that would spark a general war among the powers of Europe over the assassination of members of the royalty, an action begun on the private initiative of Black Hand, and not the instructions of the Serbian government. And even if it had, to instigate a war knowing full well that Russia would be bound by its mutual defense treaty with Serbia, was insane. Austria only did so because of the express assurances from the Kaiser's ministers that Germany would mobilize to deal with Russia.

And then, on top of that, they sabotaged French sponsored attempts at diplomatic resolution, declared war on France, and invaded a neutral state to outflank France, thereby dragging Great Britain into the conflict by the terms of their defense treaty.

The German government's actions are the single factor that turned a major international crisis, or a limited regional war into a global conflict that killed over twenty million people.

The Russian government's actions are the single factor if you want to play that game. They backed the actions of a terror state. It's either Serbian intelligence out of control and thus Serbia could not be trusted to bring the actors to justice or they were behind it. Either one is grounfs plenty of an intervention. Killing the heir to the throne of your rival is certainly an act of war. French diplomatic motions were a shield to cover Russian mobilization. Once Russia committed to defending Serbia, it was game on. You can try to spin an alternate history that the Serbs were innocent all you want but as you are so fond of saying

You are free to live in whatever fantasy world you wish. The moment you start demanding others share in your world of make believe is the point we have a problem.

You should heed your own words.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Would you classify the Germans as good guys after reading this?

Would you classify all Germans as bad guys? Because that's what you're implying.

I definitely did not imply anything like that. However, take note that Nazi Germany was literally teeming with "bad guys," and the majority of those guys were not the actual Nazi party members, but the civilian population. Why? The Nazis heavily relied on the use of propaganda to turn civilians into inhumane beings (at least in terms of ethics). You may call those civilians "misguided individuals," but since a ton of them willingly supported the Nazis, they themselves became part of the atrocities committed in WW2.

Saying that, though, there were (obviously) people who did not get brainwashed, or who pretended to be in order to escape persecution. It was a small portion, but they were the reason why not all the Germans were bad guys.

[Neanderthaland]

Not really in WWI. Or at least, if they were, so was everyone else.

Everybody was sort of shitty in WWII as well, but the Germans went the extra mile. Which is impressive when you consider that this is a war in which everyone decided it was okay to bomb civilians.

Agreed, but must admit Churchill began that craze with the 3 month bombing of German city's.

That certainly escalated things, but we shouldn't forget that other countries had been doing it for a while by that point. Hell, Japan had been doing it on a smaller scale for almost a decade.

And the Finns, of course, found the whole thing very amusing:

In 1939 the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, claimed the Soviet Union was not dropping bombs on Finland, but merely airlifting food to starving Finns. The Finns were not starving, and they ironically dubbed the RRAB-3 cluster bomb "Molotov's bread basket." They also named the improvised incendiary device that they used to counter Soviet tanks, commonly known as the Molotov cocktail, "a drink to go with the food."[3]

[Principality of the Raix]

Agreed, but must admit Churchill began that craze with the 3 month bombing of German city's.

That certainly escalated things, but we shouldn't forget that other countries had been doing it for a while by that point. Hell, Japan had been doing it on a smaller scale for almost a decade.

And the Finns, of course, found the whole thing very amusing:

In 1939 the Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, claimed the Soviet Union was not dropping bombs on Finland, but merely airlifting food to starving Finns. The Finns were not starving, and they ironically dubbed the RRAB-3 cluster bomb "Molotov's bread basket." They also named the improvised incendiary device that they used to counter Soviet tanks, commonly known as the Molotov cocktail, "a drink to go with the food."[3]

That's true, but noone did it in Churchill's display more or less. Until the Nukes being dropped on Japan. Which I think basically makes it truly the most chaotic war yet.

Except of course the German response by the Nazi's that failed 80% of the time.

[Tanzoria]

The idea that the 'victors write the hisotry books' is proven false when you see how accepted the myth that the Versailles treaty was 'unfair' is.

[Camicon]

Being demonized and vilified for World War I is what led the victors to impose brutally unfair terms of surrender on Germany, which created the conditions necessary for the Nazis to rise to power. No, in the context of World War I the Germans are not the "bad guys". Everyone in World War I seemed to be of the "Honourable Stupid" alignment. Closely related to the "Lawful Stupid" alignment, the "Honourable Stupid" alignment is most notable for behaviour that would be considered good and honourable were the stakes not so high, with an undercurrent of stubborn stupidity governing every action after said honourable behaviour has passed.

In the context of World War II? Yeah, the Nazis are the bad guys. Even if a particular soldier wasn't personally involved with the Holocaust they were still fighting for a regime that was carrying it out, and were totally OK with conquering mainland Europe for "living space" and fuck anyone who got in their way. Nazi Germany was a very evil nation, and the people who fought for it were not "good people", no two ways about it.

The next time you sleep, listen to that odd, quiet whisper in the night. This is probably Goebbels applauding you from Hell, because you are unironically regurgitating Nazi propaganda.

They weren't entirely wrong on that count. Germany had an absolutely crushing debt placed on them, with no hope whatsoever of paying it off within the next few generations. And that was done intentionally, mostly at the urging of France who had been royally fucked up by the conflict. It's no wonder that Germany refused to pay a lot of it; it was meant to cripple them.

The idea that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair or unduly harsh is nonsense. Germany was punished because the state was the major aggressor in WWI. It was the German government that issued a blank check to Austria-Hungary, encouraging them to invade and conquer Serbia, knowing fully well that this could only ever lead to war with Russia and France. And it was Germany who sabotaged diplomatic efforts to contain the July crisis, and then began an unprovoked invasion of Belgium, a neutral country, for the sole purpose of enabling their war aggression against France and outflanking the French Army.

Everyone was an aggressor in WWI. It was a clusterfucking web of alliances that all got called in at the same time. To say that Germany was solely responsible, or even primarily responsible, is just wrong.

In Belgium, they committed a litany of atrocities against the civilian population, including the mass murder of civilians. Their invasion of France caused immense damage, both in terms of lives lost, civilians uprooted, and industry plundered.

And you don't think that the Allies responded in kind? Newsflash: they did. There were atrocities on both sides.

In total, the economic damage to France was no less than 55 billion francs. Germany's reparations to all of the Allies was set at 50 billion gold marks, roughly equivalent to the economic cost incurred by France, and less than the German government had offered to pay in reparations when they sued for peace.

And the Young Plan, which was made after France invaded the Rhur to enforce payments that Germany wasn't able (or required) to pay under the Treaty of Versaille, was going to force Germany to pay 112 billion marks.

It was not an onerous burden, and the German government routinely sabotaged repayment, including deliberate measures to tank the economy to between 1919 and 1921 (on top of Germany's ludicrous war debt to its own creditors). The notion that this was a huge burden on Germany is false. Had they been so onerous, the German economy would not have been flourishing between 1923 and 1929. And by the time the Nazis took power, repayment had already been suspended indefinitely.

Their total economic collapse in 1931 suggests otherwise. And France's invasion of the Rhur in 1923 fucked the German economy, so no, they were not "flourishing" from 1923-29.

The reparations and other terms of the Versailles Treaty did nothing to cripple Germany's ability to wage war, especially when you consider that the German government acted in bad faith with all of the disarmament clauses.

No, it wasn't the treaty of Versaille. It was France's occupation of the Rhur and the resulting Dawes and Young plans that fucked Germany. And had they kept to those plans it would have crippled their ability to wage war. They didn't keep to those plans because they were, obviously, crippling - to more than just their ability to wage war. And also incredibly humiliating.

WWI was not everyone's fault. The biggest instigators also happened to lose the war. And they also avoided the very kind of bloody, destructive and murderous occupation that they had imposed on their enemies.

Russia backs the assassination of the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary by Serbian terrorists. Austria-Hungary responds as one would expect, after being assured by Germany that they would protect them from Russia, if the latter decided to declare war when Austria-Hungary takes on Serbia.

There is, at a bare minimum, four states that share blame for starting World War I. France and Britain were inevitably going to be dragged into the conflict by their alliance with Russia, so you can't really blame Germany's invasion of Belgium and France as the reason for their involvement. It could be argued that Germany's jumping the gun, so to speak, was a dick move, but the Triple Entente was going to be dragged into it regardless.

[Principality of the Raix]

The idea that the 'victors write the hisotry books' is proven false when you see how accepted the myth that the Versailles treaty was 'unfair' is.

I see it as unfair, only due to it underlining the destruction of Prussia in not only military; But Culture as well, which can be one factor besides reparations and sanctions. With a hurt ego led to WW2 in a manner.

[Neanderthaland]

That certainly escalated things, but we shouldn't forget that other countries had been doing it for a while by that point. Hell, Japan had been doing it on a smaller scale for almost a decade.

And the Finns, of course, found the whole thing very amusing:

That's true, but noone did it in Churchill's display more or less. Until the Nukes being dropped on Japan. Which I think basically makes it truly the most chaotic war yet.

It's slightly off-topic, but if I had to list the most egregious uses air power in WWII, the Nukes wouldn't even make the top 3. Awful as they were, they did at least serve to end the war. By contrast the,
1) firebombing campaign against Japan by the United States
2) the Japanese use of biological agents against China, and
3) bombing of Dresden by the United States and Britain

Were all both horrifying and of little strategic significance.

[Principality of the Raix]

That's true, but noone did it in Churchill's display more or less. Until the Nukes being dropped on Japan. Which I think basically makes it truly the most chaotic war yet.
It's slightly off-topic, but if I had to list the most egregious uses air power in WWII, the Nukes wouldn't even make the top 3. Awful as they were, they did at least serve to end the war. By contrast the,
1) firebombing campaign against Japan by the United States
2) the Japanese use of biological agents against China, and
3) bombing of Dresden by the United States and Britain

Were all both horrifying and of little strategic significance.

That's true, though we also forget russian atrocities at the end of the war. However, to the victor the spoils as they say.

However, we can not think lightly on any life lost in this war. Except maybe all the ones that began them?

[The Swedish Coast]

The Germans were worse than the Allies during WW1, not necessarily how bad we think they were, but they were practically an absolute monarchy, as was Austria Hungary. The world could have avoided WW2 if during the 1920s the Allies didn't tale so much off of Germany.

[Tanzoria]

The next time you sleep, listen to that odd, quiet whisper in the night. This is probably Goebbels applauding you from Hell, because you are unironically regurgitating Nazi propaganda.

They weren't entirely wrong on that count. Germany had an absolutely crushing debt placed on them, with no hope whatsoever of paying it off within the next few generations. And that was done intentionally, mostly at the urging of France who had been royally fucked up by the conflict. It's no wonder that Germany refused to pay a lot of it; it was meant to cripple them.

The idea that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair or unduly harsh is nonsense. Germany was punished because the state was the major aggressor in WWI. It was the German government that issued a blank check to Austria-Hungary, encouraging them to invade and conquer Serbia, knowing fully well that this could only ever lead to war with Russia and France. And it was Germany who sabotaged diplomatic efforts to contain the July crisis, and then began an unprovoked invasion of Belgium, a neutral country, for the sole purpose of enabling their war aggression against France and outflanking the French Army.

Everyone was an aggressor in WWI. It was a clusterfucking web of alliances that all got called in at the same time. To say that Germany was solely responsible, or even primarily responsible, is just wrong.

In Belgium, they committed a litany of atrocities against the civilian population, including the mass murder of civilians. Their invasion of France caused immense damage, both in terms of lives lost, civilians uprooted, and industry plundered.

And you don't think that the Allies responded in kind? Newsflash: they did. There were atrocities on both sides.

In total, the economic damage to France was no less than 55 billion francs. Germany's reparations to all of the Allies was set at 50 billion gold marks, roughly equivalent to the economic cost incurred by France, and less than the German government had offered to pay in reparations when they sued for peace.

And the Young Plan, which was made after France invaded the Rhur to enforce payments that Germany wasn't able (or required) to pay under the Treaty of Versaille, was going to force Germany to pay 112 billion marks.

It was not an onerous burden, and the German government routinely sabotaged repayment, including deliberate measures to tank the economy to between 1919 and 1921 (on top of Germany's ludicrous war debt to its own creditors). The notion that this was a huge burden on Germany is false. Had they been so onerous, the German economy would not have been flourishing between 1923 and 1929. And by the time the Nazis took power, repayment had already been suspended indefinitely.

Their total economic collapse in 1931 suggests otherwise. And France's invasion of the Rhur in 1923 fucked the German economy, so no, they were not "flourishing" from 1923-29.

The reparations and other terms of the Versailles Treaty did nothing to cripple Germany's ability to wage war, especially when you consider that the German government acted in bad faith with all of the disarmament clauses.

No, it wasn't the treaty of Versaille. It was France's occupation of the Rhur and the resulting Dawes and Young plans that fucked Germany. And had they kept to those plans it would have crippled their ability to wage war. They didn't keep to those plans because they were, obviously, crippling - to more than just their ability to wage war. And also incredibly humiliating.

WWI was not everyone's fault. The biggest instigators also happened to lose the war. And they also avoided the very kind of bloody, destructive and murderous occupation that they had imposed on their enemies.

Russia backs the assassination of the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary by Serbian terrorists. Austria-Hungary responds as one would expect, after being assured by Germany that they would protect them from Russia, if the latter decided to declare war when Austria-Hungary takes on Serbia.

There is, at a bare minimum, four states that share blame for starting World War I. France and Britain were inevitably going to be dragged into the conflict by their alliance with Russia, so you can't really blame Germany's invasion of Belgium and France as the reason for their involvement. It could be argued that Germany's jumping the gun, so to speak, was a dick move, but the Triple Entente was going to be dragged into it regardless.

You really need to do more reading on both WW1 and inter-war Weimar Germany

[Neanderthaland]

A lot of the soldiers who fought in WWI, on all sides, seemed to think that the real enemies were the generals and politicians.

[Principality of the Raix]

The Germans were worse than the Allies during WW1, not necessarily how bad we think they were, but they were practically an absolute monarchy, as was Austria Hungary. The world could have avoided WW2 if during the 1920s the Allies didn't tale so much off of Germany.

The Monarchy was not the Problem, well the one during WW1. The pre-war King was the one who built a massive military. Like China is doing now and due to that, the only conclusion is to use it. But I agree, everyone could of done something else besides kill each other.

[Camicon]

*snip*

You really need to do more reading on both WW1 and inter-war Weimar Germany

What a helpful and constructive comment. Do go on.

Back where you came from, I mean. If insubstantial, one-line snark is all we can expect from you then you're better off somewhere that isn't here.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I definitely did not imply anything like that. [...]

You said "the Germans"; not some Germans, the Germans. You never make a distinction between the Germans that opposed the Nazi's nor the Germans that supported them.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

I definitely did not imply anything like that. [...]

You said "theGermans"; not some Germans, the Germans. You never make a distinction between the Germans that opposed the Nazi's nor the Germans that supported them.

I'm wondering if this is going to turn into an argument over grammar.

Germany during WW2 was called Nazi Germany for a reason, because it was ran by Nazis. Because of that, the Nazis were also called the Germans, and because the Nazis were oh-so horrible people, it is appropriate to call the Germans horrible as well.

Also, there would be no need for me to make a distinction between the Nazi Germans and the opposing Germans. It would be pointless, since the term "the Germans" is more of a generalized saying to describe the majority of Germany in a way. I didn't say that the Germans were completely filled with bad people, for crying out loud, nor did I say that all of the Germans were bad people.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[...]Germany during WW2 was called Nazi Germany for a reason, because it was ran by Nazis.[...]

Talk about the obvious.

[...]Because of that, the Nazis were also called the Germans, and because the Nazis were oh-so horrible people, it is appropriate to call the Germans horrible as well.

Also, there would be no need for me to make a distinction between the Nazi Germans and the opposing Germans. It would be pointless, since the term "the Germans" is more of a generalized saying to describe the majority of Germany in a way.[...]

Are you expecting us to use terms from the 20th century. Firstly, never, in the entirety of my life, have I ever seen nor heard someone use "the Germans" in such a way. Secondly, "the Germans" is more of a generalised term for all Germans.

[...]I didn't say that the Germans were completely filled with bad people, for crying out loud.

No, but you did imply it, intentionally or not.

Whatever the case, this is most certainly not the place for this conversation. I'll just end it here, if you do reply, I won't reply in kind.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

[...]Germany during WW2 was called Nazi Germany for a reason, because it was ran by Nazis.[...]

Talk about the obvious.

[...]Because of that, the Nazis were also called the Germans, and because the Nazis were oh-so horrible people, it is appropriate to call the Germans horrible as well.

Also, there would be no need for me to make a distinction between the Nazi Germans and the opposing Germans. It would be pointless, since the term "the Germans" is more of a generalized saying to describe the majority of Germany in a way.[...]

Are you expecting us to use terms from the 20th century. Firstly, never, in the entirety of my life, have I ever seen nor heard someone use "the Germans" in such a way. Secondly, "the Germans" is more of a generalised term for all Germans.

[...]I didn't say that the Germans were completely filled with bad people, for crying out loud.

No, but you did imply it, intentionally or not.

And you are still going on about this? I literally posted something about Josef Mengele, one of the most inhumane doctors to have ever existed in World War 2, and this is what occurs? You didn't even comment about it; instead opting to judge on how my English is spoken, especially evident in this post that you are making. Just please drop it, since this thread is made to give opinions about the Nazis, not Grammar Nazis.

And if you are going to rant on about how "20th century" terms are to be expected, then expect them. Those terms are not so old that they were used by cavemen.

EDIT: Glad that you dropped it.

[Risottia]

If you're a history nerd and/or love either World War 1 or 2, be it the people, the uniforms, the generals, the battles or etc. then you'll know most of what happened to Germany and the German people(Austria-Hungary included).

But to most of the entertainment industry you start to notice that everyone picks the Allies even if the game was set in World War 1. Why is it that you always have to fight Germans in most World War games?

Sure you could say it's because of censors and of course Germany nowadays does not want to be reminded of Hitler and the Nazis(who would?)but still this is history and if you know history then you know what happened through books, eyewitnesses accounts and reliable searches.

Why do we always have to fight the German/Ottoman empire or Austria-Hungary or Nazi Germany? Why can't we fight as the Ottomen in Gallipoli? Is it so wrong to support the losing side?(Please don't tell me I sound like a Nazi sympathizer.)

If you were a history buff (sorry, nerds are more focused on other sectors) you'd know the plural of Ottoman isn't Ottomen.

Anyway, most of the entertainment industry is US-based. Americans usually like winners, to the point that often victory and success aren't considered events but moral qualitiesinstead. Byproduct of extreme Calvinism, you know. That's why if a game is meant to be played on one side only, it will most likely be the winning side.
There are exceptions, of course, like Silent Hunter III, but I can't remember where UbiSoft is based; and anyway you get back on the good Anglophone side by Silent Hunter IV.

[Auze]

While the Germans of the 1st World War may get a worse rap because of the Nazis that doesn't make them good to be fair. While the Great War is a war of who is the least bad of the bunch Germany definitely comes near the top of the worst. The willingness to go into a war that looked bad on the outset, the destruction of Belgium, and their sometimes horrifying colonial policy before and during the war makes it clear that Germany was not the good guy or even just unfortunately forced by circumstance.

To be fair, even if they're that bad at least they weren't the first to use gas(though they did develop the dreaded mustard gas.)

If you think the French army is innocent or better yet the Allies from doing bad, they actually used gas.

The Germans were the first to use it large scale
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bolimów[/url]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Ypres

[Ardavia]

The Germans are regarded as the bad guys, you say?

It's almost as if Germany started/engineered one of the bloodiest wars in European history with the explicit aim of conquering and turning Eastern Europe into a hellhole ruled by German plantation owners (the Germans already started to organize the occupied Baltic in 1916 and it was just a hellhole of plantations and slave camps, which is a good indicator of where things were going - as is, mind you, their previous attempts at cultural genocide against the Poles), while also breaking the power of their perceived "rivals" on the continent out of paranoia that the French might grow in power and go for revenge over 1870...

...then doing it again and this time committing genocide on a industrial scale less than 30 years later.


Naaahhh. Germany are very much rightfully regarded as the bad guys in both WW1 and WW2, sorry.

[Ardavia]

It was an act of complete lunacy, and a crime against civilization, to deliberately take the course of action that would spark a general war among the powers of Europe over the assassination of members of the royalty, an action begun on the private initiative of Black Hand, and not the instructions of the Serbian government. And even if it had, to instigate a war knowing full well that Russia would be bound by its mutual defense treaty with Serbia, was insane. Austria only did so because of the express assurances from the Kaiser's ministers that Germany would mobilize to deal with Russia.

And then, on top of that, they sabotaged French sponsored attempts at diplomatic resolution, declared war on France, and invaded a neutral state to outflank France, thereby dragging Great Britain into the conflict by the terms of their defense treaty.

The German government's actions are the single factor that turned a major international crisis, or a limited regional war into a global conflict that killed over twenty million people.

The Russian government's actions are the single factor if you want to play that game. They backed the actions of a terror state. It's either Serbian intelligence out of control and thus Serbia could not be trusted to bring the actors to justice or they were behind it. Either one is grounfs plenty of an intervention. Killing the heir to the throne of your rival is certainly an act of war. French diplomatic motions were a shield to cover Russian mobilization. Once Russia committed to defending Serbia, it was game on. You can try to spin an alternate history that the Serbs were innocent all you want but as you are so fond of saying

You are free to live in whatever fantasy world you wish. The moment you start demanding others share in your world of make believe is the point we have a problem.

You should heed your own words.

Curiously, I see no mention of the part where German correspondence from the July Crisis literally mentions the Austrian ultimatum being made deliberately unacceptable, as to provide a casus belli for invading Serbia (and even then, the Serbians were willing to agree to all but one of the ultimatum's demands to avoid war, which is a pretty good counterpoint to the absurd claim that Serbia is to blame for it).
Germany explicitly encouraged Austria to reject Serbia's reasonable answer to Austria's ultimatum. Germany wanted war in 1914, this is made perfectly clear in German correspondence from the period. They were looking for excuses to start a war where they could strike at France while it was still weak, breaking France as a German rival, and to conquer Eastern Europe to turn the place into German colonial puppet states.

It was Germany who used the assassination as the pretext to get the war they wanted. It was Germany who invaded neutral Belgium to get at France. It was Germany who conducted unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral and allied shipping. These three actions took what was at first a major international incident and turned it into a war that would take the lives of millions. And they were all Germany's actions, not Russia's or anyone else's.


Also, nice lack of mention of that ultimatum debacle when the German diplomats gave both responses to Russia, the one if they agreed to the ultimatum and the one where they didnt, and BOTH would lead to a German declaration of war. But it's nice to see how effective the ADV was in the 20s, I suppose.

[Kennlind]

the only not 100% shit nazis were Claus von Stauffenberg and his cohorts who carried out the July 20 Plot. However, the rest of the Nazis and the Imperial Germans were terrible people, and deserved everything they got.

[Australian rePublic]

With regards to WWII, Hitler really was that bad. I don't blame all the NAZI soldiers, as many would have been brainwashed into thinking they were doing good, but ultimately, NAZIism was evil

[Socialist Czechia]

yup.

perhaps if they abandoned whole 'we are supreme' thing and had better food, it would help the image. today, they speak for Europe again, like they are the ones with the ultimate right to speak for us all. so it certainly doesn't help their looks.