Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Novus America]

If anything, wouldn't have Britain benefited from the Continent tearing itself apart? Britain got involved because it wanted to f*ck up its main rival: Germany. They're no more innocent than anybody else.

And didn't France declare war on Germany first? Why would Germany willingly open up a two-front war?

Because Germany had no military plans for a one-front war.

Actually Germany did have plans for a one from war. There was Aufmarsch II Ost which was a single front plan.
Also there was Aufmarsch I Ost, in which Germany would take the defensive in the West, and defeat Russia first.

Aufmarsch II West, which was actually executed was just one of three plans (Aufmarsch I West had been dropped).

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

It didn't benefit in a "roundabout way"; it benefited by getting its two main rivals to weaken and attack each other. One of the oldest tricks in the book.

Russia was the only thing keeping German power in check, Britain's dominance depended on maintaining the balance-of-power in Europe. Either of the two power-blocs in Europe gaining a victory over the other would have been the end of Britain's dominance in international affairs.

Also, according to your logic there's a very good case to be made that China orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

[Napkizemlja]

Covering the Crusades, Israel-Palestine conflict and who is to blame for the First World War all in one evening? We're certainly getting through the controversial topics today.

Personally, I'd say that whilst Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Serbia all bear some blame for escalating the conflict when they each had the opportunity to de-escalate the situation at some point and opted not to do so, ultimate blame has to rest on Austria-Hungary, as they were the ones who actually declared war on Serbia despite the Serbs agreeing to almost all of the demands in the July Ultimatum. It's worth noting that Emperor Franz Josef himself was reluctant to go to war, and only did so under the advice of his ministers.

And what about Britain? They get a free pass, of course.

The only thing you could potentially blame Britain for is taking a bit too long to make its position clear to the Germans; maybe if they had been a bit faster in indicating that they would go to war if Belgium's neutrality was violated then perhaps the Germans would have avoided launching their attacks. That is about it. Everyone was looking to the UK to find a diplomatic solution to the July Crisis and the British government certainly gave it a shot to avoid a war. The idea that Britain had Franz Ferdinand assassinated is baseless beyond belief and fueled by nothing else other than your Anglophobia.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

Yup. Britain went from being indisputably the greatest power on Earth to being one of many relatively equal powers.

[Nea Byzantia]

Also, according to your logic there's a very good case to be made that China orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Why would China orchestrate 9/11; what's the benefit? I could see China benefiting from RussiaGate; but not 9/11.

[Old Tyrannia]

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

The Serbians got supremacy in their home-region despite being primarily responsible for starting the shit that eventually became the Great War. I'd say they were beneficiaries too.

While that's true, the Serbs arguably suffered more than anyone as a result of the conflict. They bled a great deal for their gains- upper estimates put their losses at 27.78% of the population within their pre-war borders.

[Farnhamia]

I too would exclude the insidious Ir*sh from New York.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, according to your logic there's a very good case to be made that China orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Why would China orchestrate 9/11; what's the benefit? I could see China benefiting from RussiaGate; but not 9/11.

9/11 led to the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two wars which dramatically weakened the American economy, tied down the US military so that it could not intervene elsewhere, resulted in increasing American distrust of their government and defunding of the military, all while China engaged in one of the largest military buildups and economic booms in history. China benefitted enormously from the 9/11 attacks because while the US was busy fighting pointless wars against ragtag Islamic militias, China quietly became one of the preeminent military powers in the world.

[Nova Cyberia]

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

What did Italy gain from World War I, other than mountains of dead corpses?

Trieste and South Tyrol.

That's about it.

[North German Realm]

What did Italy gain from World War I, other than mountains of dead corpses?

Trieste and South Tyrol.

That's about it.

And parts of Dalmatia

[Novus America]

Actually it was not, because of the political situation in France. France has a dysfunctional anti war government at the time, even if it went to war, it would have only launched limited attacks which could not break the German fortifications.

No matter how optimistic the German Brass was, they had to know that war with Russia would take a while. They couldn't risk France just turrning pro-war in the middle of the war when they had no military presence in the Rhineland and Alsace. Given the larger population and area of Russia, they'd need to involve most if not all of their men, which meant they had to ensure France would be permanently incapacitated first.

Germany actually had a plan for that, Aufmarsch II Ost.

Under that Germany would deploy 60% of its forces in purely defense stances in the West, and use the remainder to defeat Russia.

That would have worked. Even if France later got involved they would get massacred trying to attack Germany’s border fortresses. The French had virtually no heavy siege artillery.

[Nea Byzantia]

Why would China orchestrate 9/11; what's the benefit? I could see China benefiting from RussiaGate; but not 9/11.

9/11 led to the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two wars which dramatically weakened the American economy, tied down the US military so that it could not intervene elsewhere, resulted in increasing American distrust of their government and defunding of the military, all while China engaged in one of the largest military buildups and economic booms in history. China benefitted enormously from the 9/11 attacks because while the US was busy fighting pointless wars against ragtag Islamic militias, China quietly became one of the preeminent military powers in the world.

I see what you're getting at.

My theory was just to say that I don't think the Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand; and it was set up by a third party. Perhaps Austrian war-hawks just used the random terrorist act of some guy to push for a desired war with the Serbs? Were there any Austrians who disliked Franz? Could the setup have been internal?

[United Muscovite Nations]

9/11 led to the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, two wars which dramatically weakened the American economy, tied down the US military so that it could not intervene elsewhere, resulted in increasing American distrust of their government and defunding of the military, all while China engaged in one of the largest military buildups and economic booms in history. China benefitted enormously from the 9/11 attacks because while the US was busy fighting pointless wars against ragtag Islamic militias, China quietly became one of the preeminent military powers in the world.

I see what you're getting at.

My theory was just to say that I don't think the Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand; and it was set up by a third party. Perhaps Austrian war-hawks just used the random terrorist act of some guy to push for a desired war with the Serbs? Were there any Austrians who disliked Franz? Could the setup have been internal?

He was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist group that had ties to the Serbian government. There's no reason to suppose anyone else was involved and saying otherwise is just baseless conspiracy theory.

[Nova Cyberia]

I see what you're getting at.

My theory was just to say that I don't think the Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand; and it was set up by a third party. Perhaps Austrian war-hawks just used the random terrorist act of some guy to push for a desired war with the Serbs? Were there any Austrians who disliked Franz? Could the setup have been internal?

He was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist group that had ties to the Serbian government. There's no reason to suppose anyone else was involved and saying otherwise is just baseless conspiracy theory.

I can think of someone who was involved...

[Nova Cyberia]

No matter how optimistic the German Brass was, they had to know that war with Russia would take a while. They couldn't risk France just turrning pro-war in the middle of the war when they had no military presence in the Rhineland and Alsace. Given the larger population and area of Russia, they'd need to involve most if not all of their men, which meant they had to ensure France would be permanently incapacitated first.

Germany actually had a plan for that, Aufmarsch II Ost.

Under that Germany would deploy 60% of its forces in purely defense stances in the West, and use the remainder to defeat Russia.

That would have worked. Even if France later got involved they would get massacred trying to attack Germany’s border fortresses. The French had virtually no heavy siege artillery.

Germany stood to gain more from expanding east anyway.

[Napkizemlja]

Oh I am aware the Venetians and other unscrupulous Italians banker clans hijacked the crusades for their own ends.
And this caused them to fail.
But that was the implementation, not the original purpose.

Again the original purpose was fine, fighting against Islamic aggression.
The actual implementation was obviously a disaster.

I disagree. The original purpose was to get a piece of the pie in the Silk Road; but that doesn't exactly get the knights of Europe to sign up for your cause; introduce the Liberation of Jerusalem, a Papal Indulgence, and Let's-Lick-Those-Muslims-Over-There; and you've got yourself a devoted fighting force.

But I do agree that Islam was a threat to Europe; and you could make the argument that many of the later wars against the Ottoman Empire; striving to halt their advance into Central and Eastern Europe constitute Crusades in it of themselves. And those were most certainly justified.

Yeah, I'm sure Alexios Komnenos asking for aid had nothing to do with it.

[North German Realm]

Germany actually had a plan for that, Aufmarsch II Ost.

Under that Germany would deploy 60% of its forces in purely defense stances in the West, and use the remainder to defeat Russia.

That would have worked. Even if France later got involved they would get massacred trying to attack Germany’s border fortresses. The French had virtually no heavy siege artillery.

Germany stood to gain more from expanding east anyway.

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

[Nea Byzantia]

I disagree. The original purpose was to get a piece of the pie in the Silk Road; but that doesn't exactly get the knights of Europe to sign up for your cause; introduce the Liberation of Jerusalem, a Papal Indulgence, and Let's-Lick-Those-Muslims-Over-There; and you've got yourself a devoted fighting force.

But I do agree that Islam was a threat to Europe; and you could make the argument that many of the later wars against the Ottoman Empire; striving to halt their advance into Central and Eastern Europe constitute Crusades in it of themselves. And those were most certainly justified.

Yeah, I'm sure Alexios Komnenos asking for aid had nothing to do with it.

He certainly wasn't expecting the First Crusade. He was probably just expecting a few thousand mercenaries; not half of Europe. And I'm not discussing Eastern Roman motivations; I'm discussing Western motivations.

[Novus America]

And what about Britain? They get a free pass, of course.

The only thing you could potentially blame Britain for is taking a bit too long to make its position clear to the Germans; maybe if they had been a bit faster in indicating that they would go to war if Belgium's neutrality was violated then perhaps the Germans would have avoided launching their attacks. That is about it. Everyone was looking to the UK to find a diplomatic solution to the July Crisis and the British government certainly gave it a shot to avoid a war. The idea that Britain had Franz Ferdinand assassinated is baseless beyond belief and fueled by nothing else other than your Anglophobia.

Yes, the UK was not to blame. Serbia was the most guilty, Austria had has justification to attack Serbia but could have avoided it. Russia should not have been so willing to defend Serbian terrorism, Germany made it much worse by launching a unprovoked attack on Belgium.

The UK had a treaty to defend Belgium, and it followed the treaty.

[Napkizemlja]

Germany stood to gain more from expanding east anyway.

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

When has that ever stopped anyone?

[North German Realm]

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

When has that ever stopped anyone?

At any point after the Congress of Wien? Annexations (at least where they're not explicitly colonial) have always required valid justification after the Napoleonic Wars.

[Nova Cyberia]

Germany stood to gain more from expanding east anyway.

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the Low Countries and they wanted to fucking vassalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

[North German Realm]

I'm like, 90% sure Germany had no actual case to justify any form of annexation in the West. Like, at all. The German population of Lorraine were nowhere near large enough to justify annexation of concessions in the scale that the Volksdeutsche of the East were.

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

The irony of it is that they could probably have achieved like, two of those goals easier without a war.

[Salus Maior]

It's not an off-the-wall theory, it's stupid. Imagine declaring someone guilty of a crime because they benefited from it in a roundabout way.

Given that the First World War left the United Kingdom bankrupt and marked the end of Britain's global hegemony, I don't see how we benefited from it at all.

The real beneficiaries of the war were the United States, Japan, Russian communists and perhaps Italy. I suppose France regained Alsace-Lorraine, but at a very high cost.

And Fascists.

[Nova Cyberia]

The German Empire was just too fucking ambitious. Not only did they want a network of vassals carved out of Russia's former Western territories, they also wanted complete domination of the low countries and they wanted to fucking vandalize France.

Essentially, they wanted complete domination over mainland Europe. They bit off way more than they could chew.

The irony of it is that they could probably have achieved like, two of those goals easier without a war.

I meant "vassalize" France.

Damn autocorrect.

And anyway, which ones could they have achieved without war?