NationStates

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

Sovaal wrote:

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

So the Germans arraigned for the Archdukes assassination?

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.

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.

UKCS wrote:

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

*Austrians.

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.

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.

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.

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.