NATION

PASSWORD

Are the Germans really the bad guys.

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Aellex
Senator
 
Posts: 4635
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aellex » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:35 am

Yes.
/thread
Citoyen Français. Disillusioned Gaulliste. Catholique.

Tombé au champ d'honneur, add 11400 posts.

Member of the Committee
for Proletarian Morality


RIP Balk, you were too good a shitposter for this site.

User avatar
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30040
Founded: Dec 18, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:35 am

In WW2? Yes.
In WW1? Hell no. WW1 was a depressing long lasting war that was massively for all sides.

Neither side was really the 'good' guy or 'bad guy'. Both sides used chemical wepons and both sides committed atrocities. While, yes, the Germans were the first ones to use chemical wepons, the allies also used chemical wepons, making both sides equally as bad.
Last edited by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp on Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
❤BITTEN BY THE VAMPIRE QUEEN OF COOKIES❤ NSwiki WA Ambassador: Silver Zephyr. NS's sexyest user 2016 Male 18-29 NSG 2016 Award for Humour 2018 award for most friendly poster (tied with Luminesa)
WBC 38 Postseason team, WBC 40 Postseason Quarterfinalist team, WBC 41 Semifinalists, WBC 42 Third place
Feel the Bern 2020 Trump disrespected fallen heroes beacuse of a little rain
Rainbow dash Is best pony.Scootalove is best love.A love letter to NS

User avatar
Arcanstotska
Diplomat
 
Posts: 789
Founded: Oct 19, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Arcanstotska » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:39 am

Germans aren't bad guys. Sure, they had their own evil moments, but so have so many other nations. And the Germans have had many good moments, too. Otto von Bismarck unified the smaller German states with Prussia to create the German Empire. Albert Einstein helped make the first atom bomb.

The Germans aren't bad. People only say they're bad because they only like to see the bad parts of German history.
DEAD SPACE RULES

User avatar
Letwinist States
Envoy
 
Posts: 316
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Letwinist States » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:44 am

Arcanstotska wrote:Germans aren't bad guys. Sure, they had their own evil moments, but so have so many other nations. And the Germans have had many good moments, too. Otto von Bismarck unified the smaller German states with Prussia to create the German Empire. Albert Einstein helped make the first atom bomb.

The Germans aren't bad. People only say they're bad because they only like to see the bad parts of German history.


I reject the belief that Einstein built an atomic bomb. While he found the basic knowledge neccessary, he was greatly against it being weaponised.

Otto von Bismarck cannot be viewed as a hero for all the bad he did, despite unifying Germany.

Either way, I would agree that Germans are not all bad (obviously, I am German) but the op gave the world wars as examples and in those cases, they did not wet themselves with glory.
[_*_]
(o_o)
Your friendly neighbourhood council democracy. Proud member of the Democratic Socialist Party in the Red Alliance
Overview | Defence Forces | The Featherbear | Persons and Places of Note
| Our Embassy Programme |

Pilarcraft wrote:they aren't a phony state capitalist society pretending to be left-wing, and actually know what the hell Socialism is.
Las Palmeras wrote:The People's Defence Forces, apart from having a defensive doctrine (which somewhat reminds us of ours) can make nuclear weapons but chooses not to...your nation is among the oddballs of NS. But it's all really well written and described, I upvoted it.

User avatar
Imperium Sidhicum
Senator
 
Posts: 4324
Founded: May 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperium Sidhicum » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:02 am

The answer to OP's question is two words - "vae victis". Always been that way, always will be.
Freedom doesn't mean being able to do as one please, but rather not to do as one doesn't please.

A fool sees religion as the truth. A smart man sees religion as a lie. A ruler sees religion as a useful tool.

The more God in one's mouth, the less in one's heart.

User avatar
Aellex
Senator
 
Posts: 4635
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aellex » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:11 am

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:In WW2? Yes.
In WW1? Hell no. WW1 was a depressing long lasting war that was massively for all sides.

Neither side was really the 'good' guy or 'bad guy'. Both sides used chemical wepons and both sides committed atrocities. While, yes, the Germans were the first ones to use chemical wepons, the allies also used chemical wepons, making both sides equally as bad.

"Everyone was just as mean" my fucking arse, mate. The Germans used chemicals weapons first on a scale so massive even them thought that they over-did it with the magnificent excuse that "lol, the Geneva convention just say that using gas shell is forbidden so it's ok if we just use gas directly"; do you seriously expected the Entente to politely agree and keep on going without reciprocating? Please.
As for the atrocities, please, there is simply no comparing the rape of Belgium alone with anything the Entente ever did during the war.
Citoyen Français. Disillusioned Gaulliste. Catholique.

Tombé au champ d'honneur, add 11400 posts.

Member of the Committee
for Proletarian Morality


RIP Balk, you were too good a shitposter for this site.

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24875
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:12 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:I'd actually argue they're bad in different ways for both.

For WW1 you've got the issue of Prussian Militarism and the institutions of germany basically being all geared toward permanent conquest. The whole "They aren't so bad" thing ignores this. There's a reason the Nazis were able to sweep to power beyond mere economics, the institutions and culture of germany assisted them.

In comparison, the UK isn't a militaristic power at the time. It fields a small army prior to WW1, because it isn't interested in global conquest, but rather, global trade. (An admitted side effect of which is conquering those who refuse to trade.), and additionally, In the first six months of world war two, we had more planes and balloons dropping leaflets and propaganda than bombs.

"The great questions of the day will not be decided by resolutions or majorities, but by blood and iron." - Bismark

"As soon as anybody can show me it is sound policy, I shall be equally satisfied to see our troops open fire at the french, the russians, the english, or the austrians." - Bismark

2 years into Bismarks term, he attacked Denmark and won.

The history of Prussia and subsequently Germany is one of constant aggression and expansion until WW2 and total occupation.

Germany was formed by the defeat of France and militaristic fervor uniting the german princes behind the dream of total conquest.

The racial myths of the Nazis and the master/warrior race shtick was Germanic through and through.

Germanies railroads were constructed according to military needs, not trade and resource flow, etc.

Germany was basically on a path to world conquest and wasn't going to stop until it was undeniably and unquestionably defeated, the reason WW2 was even necessary was that they weren't occupied after WW1 and their institutions dismantled.

Consider the unrestricted naval warfare of the Kaiser to get an idea of the mentality. Germany was, in effect, at war with the whole of humanity and intended to continue being so and expanding.

Conquered people should be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with.", etc. Clausewitz: "Just as Prussia has been fated to be the core of Germany, so Germany will be the core of the future German empire of the west."

This is the driving force behind German policy from before it was even Germany. "Germany's symbol is Victoria (shown atop the Brandenburg gate) bearing arms, NOT the liberty bell, NOT the magna carta, NOT liberté, egalité, fraternité."

German culture and institutions were proud of war and conquest and such. They were a medieval society with modern arms, that's all. They enjoyed dueling instead of football in their schooling systems, etc.

The germany of today bares almost no resemblance to them.

If you look at the economy of Germany and how it was managed and the elites who controlled it, as well as the interests of those in charge of its institutions, it becomes fairly obvious that Nazi Germany is basically just the Kaisers germany, but with modernist militarism instead of medievalism and a bit more racism. The extent to which Germany was geared for conquest is often ignored by people when talking about WW1.

The "Germany was the aggressor." narrative is these days denied, but that ignores the overall context of the situation. Germany had been rapidly expanding its army, it had destabilized and wished to destabilize the world, etc.

The modern germany is now more proud of its musicians and such rather than those who had any influence over the state of germany or prussia, for good reason. They have no Washington to celebrate. There was no "good guy" in the German system, only militarists, and eventually, racist militarists.

The transition from the Kaiser to the Republic was a farce. The industrialists remained in charge of industry. The state officials remained in place. The teachers remained the same, still preaching ultranationalism and racial superiority.

During WW1, the german populace was told of a string of military victories, and following surrender, there was no foreign army marching through the capital. Instead, the german military returned home to parade, waving the flag. The stab in the back myth is part of this, but consider. Why should a stab in the back myth matter to a country in these circumstances unless they WANTED to prosecute WW1?

Consider that the elites of the Kaiser "cliffed" (Like glass cliff) the democratic republic by forcing them to be the ones to sign the treaty, then immediately set about undermining democracy to keep control among the elites, subsequently collaborating with the nazis, etc.

The original nazi party was at first a coalition of Nazis and Kaiserrists. This is not a coincidence. In fact, arguably, the Nazi Germany that initiated WW2 was not really Nazi in nature, but rather "Anti-semitic Republican Kaiserrism.", as the night of the long knives represents the purge of half the party as the Nazi officials more closely align with the already established powers in germany, siding with the Industrialists and elites against the Socialists within the Nazi Party who demanded the "Second revolution." to destroy the landed elites and capitalists. Point 11 of the nazi 25 points was the abolition of "unearned income" (A Georgist term), this obviously could not be allowed to stand. (As in, no landlords, no stocks, no benefits, no capitalism, workers only.)

The reason the "Socialist" side of the nazi party didn't make headway is that it was co-opted by German institutions and forced to be more like the already established german system. So arguing that the system pre-nazis wasn't bad too is kind of mind blowing to me.

WW1 germany was bad too, just not as genocidal, but consider, the officials and powers of that germany were happy to align themselves with genocide if it meant keeping the military industrial complex of germany going. (Not being facetious, that's pretty much what happened.)

For the record, point 12 of the Nazi programme (Also eventually unfulfilled post-purge.)

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


This should tell you something about the character of Germany, that this was deemed important enough to be one of the 25 policy promises of the NSDAP.


Sounds like it would be a good place to grow up in.
Reincarnation and Successor of God Kefka +~4500 posts


Art Thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p19679163)

User avatar
Myrensis
Senator
 
Posts: 4342
Founded: Oct 05, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Myrensis » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:17 am

Well, WW2 the Nazis were pretty much indisputably the villains.

WWi it's mostly because Germany had been stepping on toes and bloodying noses for a while in it's drive to secure it's place among the Great Powers, so everybody took the opportunity to scapegoat them and blame them for everything bad that had ever happened in the world. Which led directly to WW2, natch.

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13189
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Sovaal » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:23 am

Auze wrote:
Vulkata II wrote: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

What I never got was the widespread use of gas by the Germans but they thought shotguns in battle where war crimes.

Dirty centrist
Unapologetic Jon Snow supporter
"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50583
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:23 am

Myrensis wrote:Well, WW2 the Nazis were pretty much indisputably the villains.

WWi it's mostly because Germany had been stepping on toes and bloodying noses for a while in it's drive to secure it's place among the Great Powers, so everybody took the opportunity to scapegoat them and blame them for everything bad that had ever happened in the world. Which led directly to WW2, natch.


Germany's military industrial complex led to WW2. A permanent war economy and war corporatism, with the elites and the institutions that upheld them supporting these goals.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Do you remember the 2012 election where Mitt Romney said Russia was the biggest threat to world peace and Obama and the Democratic establishment mocked him, mere years before they began arguing they had allowed US sovereignty to be usurped on their watch by Russia and this is why the other side was unfit to govern?
That's alright, neither do they apparently.

User avatar
Baltenstein
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9976
Founded: Jan 25, 2010
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Baltenstein » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:30 am

Principality of the Raix wrote:In my view and if one actually reads about Prussia and WW1, then the Germans are not the bad guys. Rather the guy who began it is the "evil" as the defeat and dismantling of Prussia led to WW2 and a Charismatic Austrian leading the German people and in a manner they did not start it then either; Least against Britian (Other Countries, not so much).

So WW1, you can't claim any side as evil. But WW2, yes one can claim Nazi Germany as Evil as the U.S.S.R basically due to all the deaths made by both.

Edited Note: Actually I view the League of Nations as the evil in WW1 as if they did Not dismantle a culture and Nation. WW2 would of had a lesser chance to occur, defeat is bad. But people don't restart wars after losing one. However, they destroyed a Nation .


Prussia wasn't dismantled post-WW1. Germany stayed Germany and Prussia stayed Prussia.

Image


See that blue state that takes up more than half of the whole country? That's Prussia post-WW1. So I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.
O'er the hills and o'er the main.
Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain.
King George commands and we obey.
Over the hills and far away.


THE NORTH REMEMBERS

User avatar
Aellex
Senator
 
Posts: 4635
Founded: Apr 23, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Aellex » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:32 am

Vulkata II wrote: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.

TIL that using tear-gas (military one, tbf, but which worst effect is making you cry like hell and cough) on small scale in the form of grenades is somehow akin to drenching entire battlefields with Yperite (that swell little thing that at best burn your eyes, skin and mucous membranes but more usually just make you literally drown in your own pulmonary tissues).
Citoyen Français. Disillusioned Gaulliste. Catholique.

Tombé au champ d'honneur, add 11400 posts.

Member of the Committee
for Proletarian Morality


RIP Balk, you were too good a shitposter for this site.

User avatar
Zakuvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Democratic Socialists

Postby Zakuvia » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:35 am

Sovaal wrote:
Auze wrote: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

What I never got was the widespread use of gas by the Germans but they thought shotguns in battle where war crimes.


Lack of hindsight, I'd say. Shotguns were a known entity to the ruling generals and lawmakers. Chemical agents, not so much. There was a reason why all sides agreed after the conflict to not put them into use again. I'm not sure if Hitler himself was ever involved in a gas attack, but I'd be shocked if he'd never seen a fellow soldier of the time who hadn't been effected by it.

As for the question in a modern context, I would say that no, the Germans aren't the bad guys, they just think they're so much the 'good guys' that other countries should be following their example whether they want to or not, hence the furore with Poland.
Balance is important in diets, gymnastics, and governments most of all.
NOW CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF NS!
-1.12, -0.46

User avatar
The East Marches II
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13734
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The East Marches II » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:40 am

Ardavia wrote:
The East Marches II wrote:
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 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.


>Trusting a terror state to carry out an investigation

Yeah yeah, let me just go ask the Taliban about old Bin Laden. We could have trusted them to bring their own funded and tolerated bandits to justice. There is no reasonable answer when one actively funds terror groups with State funds.

Read "The Plan that Broke the World" for more details on how wrong you are on this idea that the Germans were operating with a surefire strategic plan and dastardly plot to break France.

As for the diplomats thing, war was already on the table with Russian stealth mobilization and blank check for a terror state.
On vacation in 【Dubrovnik】
Will return if not killed by 【Montenegrins】

User avatar
Sanjurika
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Sep 21, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Sanjurika » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:42 am

Not sure that Germany in WW1 was all that horrible in the beginning. But for sure most of the people in WW2 were what we would consider bad.
Citizen of the North Pacific
Lover of Koalas!

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination

User avatar
Robosia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 417
Founded: Aug 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Robosia » Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:49 am

WW1 had no real villains, just winners and losers.
Some people design their sigs as a work of art, with links and colors and complex coding. To which I say...

ACN - Antarctica Continental News | British cargo ship sinks just off Ellsworth coast, water tastes like tea for three days | 10 timber wolves brought into Sanctum City zoo.


User avatar
Community Values
Minister
 
Posts: 2880
Founded: Nov 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Community Values » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:03 am

Sovaal wrote:
Community Values wrote:Yes, the Germans (as a nationality) started WW1, and WW2.

So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

The Germans declared war on Serbia even though Serbia agreed with the Germans' first set of demands.
"Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
-Huey Long

User avatar
Ardavia
Senator
 
Posts: 4731
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardavia » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:35 am

The East Marches II wrote:
Ardavia wrote:
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.


>Trusting a terror state to carry out an investigation

Yeah yeah, let me just go ask the Taliban about old Bin Laden. We could have trusted them to bring their own funded and tolerated bandits to justice. There is no reasonable answer when one actively funds terror groups with State funds.

Read "The Plan that Broke the World" for more details on how wrong you are on this idea that the Germans were operating with a surefire strategic plan and dastardly plot to break France.

As for the diplomats thing, war was already on the table with Russian stealth mobilization and blank check for a terror state.


>buy and read this self-published tripe by some random crank with no qualifications in history

Yeah, nah, mate. Get some credible sources and I'll maybe consider your arguments worth reading. I'd suggest starting with Holger Herwig, Martin Middlebrook and Chris Clark.


Anyway, again: the Serbs agreed to 14 out of 15 points in the Austrian ultimatum when pressed with the charges of supporting the assassination, or at least letting it happen. These are not the actions of a state out to start a war with Austria, and it's certainly not the actions of "the Taliban of its day" or whatever Reddit hot take BS you're pushing.

Yes, Serbian nationalist-terrorism was a thing, but it wasn't by any means wholly supported by the Serbian government like you're implying.

Meanwhile, the Germans very much had a plan to go after France once the war got started - documentation from the time explicitly states that their plan was to break France upon the outbreak of war, before the Russians could mobilize, so they could focus on Russia afterward, and thus achieve the plans laid out in the Septemberprogramm that called for the breaking of France as a major power and the conquest of a chunk of the Russian Empire to turn into occupation zones Germany could economically suck dry.

Their actions also support this - they occupied Luxemburg two days before even declaring mobilization, and invaded Belgium to strike at France less than a week after the Austrians marched into Serbia.
Last edited by Ardavia on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:07 am, edited 3 times in total.
professional contrarian
for: whatever you are against
against: whatever you are for

User avatar
UKCS
Diplomat
 
Posts: 839
Founded: Oct 04, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby UKCS » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:41 am

Community Values wrote:
Sovaal wrote:So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

The Germans declared war on Serbia even though Serbia agreed with the Germans' first set of demands.

*Austrians.
I am female. Refer to me as a female, please. Call me Megan.
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Any semblance of the old nation(s) no longer exists. This new nation is approximately 260 years after the last update to the former incarnation of this account. It was physically painful to delete all those factbooks....

Authoritarian socialist, British, and damned proud of it. The SNP are traitors, don't be fooled.

User avatar
Community Values
Minister
 
Posts: 2880
Founded: Nov 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Community Values » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:03 am

UKCS wrote:
Community Values wrote:The Germans declared war on Serbia even though Serbia agreed with the Germans' first set of demands.

*Austrians.

I was referring to the Germans as a nationality. The leader of Austria, a German, declared war on Serbia.
"Corrupted by wealth and power, your government is like a restaurant with only one dish. They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
-Huey Long

User avatar
The East Marches II
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13734
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby The East Marches II » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:03 am

Ardavia wrote:
The East Marches II wrote:
>Trusting a terror state to carry out an investigation

Yeah yeah, let me just go ask the Taliban about old Bin Laden. We could have trusted them to bring their own funded and tolerated bandits to justice. There is no reasonable answer when one actively funds terror groups with State funds.

Read "The Plan that Broke the World" for more details on how wrong you are on this idea that the Germans were operating with a surefire strategic plan and dastardly plot to break France.

As for the diplomats thing, war was already on the table with Russian stealth mobilization and blank check for a terror state.


>buy and read this self-published tripe by some random crank with no qualifications in history

Yeah, nah, mate. Get some credible sources and I'll maybe consider your arguments worth reading. I'd suggest starting with Holger Herwig, Martin Middlebrook and Chris Clark.


Anyway, again: the Serbs agreed to 14 out of 15 points in the Austrian ultimatum when pressed with the charges of supporting the assassination, or at least letting it happen. These are not the actions of a state out to start a war with Austria, and it's certainly not the actions of "the Taliban of its day" or whatever Reddit hot take BS you're pushing.

Yes, Serbian nationalist-terrorism was a thing, but it wasn't by any means wholly supported by the Serbian government like you're implying.


>Naval staff officers and former DoD consultants on strategy aren't a "valid" source

Sure, sure and no mention of Showalter, your so called sources are trash.

Anyway again, the Serbs were a terror state who funded a terror group who assassinated an heir to their arch-rival's throne. They had to be brought to justice. True to form, the Russians unwrote this terror state and started WW1.
Last edited by The East Marches II on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
On vacation in 【Dubrovnik】
Will return if not killed by 【Montenegrins】

User avatar
Salus Maior
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14508
Founded: Jun 16, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Salus Maior » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:17 am

WWI is debatable. Everyone in that war wanted the same thing; expanded influence and territory.

WWII really isn't. Nazi Germany was undeniably wrong.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:5

"What is better? To be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?" -Paarthurnax

On Feminist interpretations of God and Christianity.

User avatar
UKCS
Diplomat
 
Posts: 839
Founded: Oct 04, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby UKCS » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:17 am

Community Values wrote:
UKCS wrote:*Austrians.

I was referring to the Germans as a nationality. The leader of Austria, a German, declared war on Serbia.

Ah, forgive me, I was not aware of the specific context. (I'm a subconscious pedant).
Although I would disagree that the Austrians were fully German by point.
I am female. Refer to me as a female, please. Call me Megan.
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Any semblance of the old nation(s) no longer exists. This new nation is approximately 260 years after the last update to the former incarnation of this account. It was physically painful to delete all those factbooks....

Authoritarian socialist, British, and damned proud of it. The SNP are traitors, don't be fooled.

User avatar
UKCS
Diplomat
 
Posts: 839
Founded: Oct 04, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby UKCS » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:19 am

The East Marches II wrote:
Ardavia wrote:
>buy and read this self-published tripe by some random crank with no qualifications in history

Yeah, nah, mate. Get some credible sources and I'll maybe consider your arguments worth reading. I'd suggest starting with Holger Herwig, Martin Middlebrook and Chris Clark.


Anyway, again: the Serbs agreed to 14 out of 15 points in the Austrian ultimatum when pressed with the charges of supporting the assassination, or at least letting it happen. These are not the actions of a state out to start a war with Austria, and it's certainly not the actions of "the Taliban of its day" or whatever Reddit hot take BS you're pushing.

Yes, Serbian nationalist-terrorism was a thing, but it wasn't by any means wholly supported by the Serbian government like you're implying.


>Naval staff officers and former DoD consultants on strategy aren't a "valid" source

Sure, sure and no mention of Showalter, your so called sources are trash.

Anyway again, the Serbs were a terror state who funded a terror group who assassinated an heir to their arch-rival's throne. They had to be brought to justice. True to form, the Russians unwrote this terror state and started WW1.


Don't tell me you honestly, truly believe that the entire Serbian nation is responsible for the First World War, and deserved all they suffered during it?
I am female. Refer to me as a female, please. Call me Megan.
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Any semblance of the old nation(s) no longer exists. This new nation is approximately 260 years after the last update to the former incarnation of this account. It was physically painful to delete all those factbooks....

Authoritarian socialist, British, and damned proud of it. The SNP are traitors, don't be fooled.

User avatar
Ardavia
Senator
 
Posts: 4731
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardavia » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:19 am

The East Marches II wrote:
Ardavia wrote:
>buy and read this self-published tripe by some random crank with no qualifications in history

Yeah, nah, mate. Get some credible sources and I'll maybe consider your arguments worth reading. I'd suggest starting with Holger Herwig, Martin Middlebrook and Chris Clark.


Anyway, again: the Serbs agreed to 14 out of 15 points in the Austrian ultimatum when pressed with the charges of supporting the assassination, or at least letting it happen. These are not the actions of a state out to start a war with Austria, and it's certainly not the actions of "the Taliban of its day" or whatever Reddit hot take BS you're pushing.

Yes, Serbian nationalist-terrorism was a thing, but it wasn't by any means wholly supported by the Serbian government like you're implying.


>Naval staff officers and former DoD consultants on strategy aren't a "valid" source

Sure, sure and no mention of Showalter, your so called sources are trash.

Anyway again, the Serbs were a terror state who funded a terror group who assassinated an heir to their arch-rival's throne. They had to be brought to justice. True to form, the Russians unwrote this terror state and started WW1.


when he has no history credentials or really any credentials to be writing on matters of early 20th century politics, yes he's a trash source, just throwing that out there

meanwhile, I've cited a Regius Professor of History of Cambridge, among others, but my sources are trash because I didn't bother citing someone specific you apparently like? k

I note you still haven't provided any proof for that claim that Serbia was a terrorist state, or the slightest hint of a response to the little issue of Serbia acquiescing to the Austrian demands to avoid war that rather contradicts your claim of Serbia being warmongering terrorists

anyway you do whatever, I'm not really interested in arguing with some right-wing sperg who is obviously unwilling to actually debate in the slightest, so I'm going to dance away now
professional contrarian
for: whatever you are against
against: whatever you are for

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abserdia, Aclion, Dumb Ideologies, Ethel mermania, Galloism, Grapasia, Hediacrana, Heloin, Hirota, Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Kernen, Kowani, Majestic-12 [Bot], Minachia, Necroghastia, Newne Carriebean7, Ninurta 7, North German Realm, Ostroeuropa, Spirit of Hope, The Alma Mater, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The Eternal Sightseer, The Huskar Social Union, The New California Republic, The South Falls, Upper Tyrconnel

Advertisement

Remove ads