RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[New Visayan Islands]

Hard disagree. No other state besides Prussia could realistically have achieved German unification, other than perhaps Austria; but the Habsburgs' ability to act as an effective leader of the German states was hampered by the fact that most of their own domains were predominantly inhabited by non-Germans and their own interests lay largely outside Germany. Besides, they were Roman Catholics whereas a majority of Germans in that period were Protestant, and in general Protestant populations should not be forced to live under Roman Catholic rulers.

But Roman Catholics should be forced to live under Protestant rulers? In particular, Protestants which are hostile to Catholicism?

Seems like a two-faced argument.

Also, daily reminder that the Prussian military institution is partially responsible for how bad the Great War was, and what drove Germany to ruin.

For the uninitiated, how is that so?

[The New California Republic]

Y'all need more than two major parties, to mix it up a bit.

bring back the whigs!

If Horace Greeley is any indication, there will be a lot of neckbeards in the new Whig Party.

[Remaris]

Hard disagree. No other state besides Prussia could realistically have achieved German unification, other than perhaps Austria; but the Habsburgs' ability to act as an effective leader of the German states was hampered by the fact that most of their own domains were predominantly inhabited by non-Germans and their own interests lay largely outside Germany. Besides, they were Roman Catholics whereas a majority of Germans in that period were Protestant, and in general Protestant populations should not be forced to live under Roman Catholic rulers.

But Roman Catholics should be forced to live under Protestant rulers? In particular, Protestants which are hostile to Catholicism?

Seems like a two-faced argument.

Although I'd hesitate to endorse Bismarck's religious policies unreservedly, the Kulturkampf was more an effort to reduce the cultural influence and power of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution in Germany than a generalised persecution of German Catholics. It certainly doesn't compare to the earlier repression of the Protestant faith in majority Protestant regions under Habsburg control, which resulted in the near-total erasure of Protestantism from areas such as the Czech lands that at one point were overwhelmingly Protestant (and arguably constituted the historic heartland of the Protestant faith).

Also, daily reminder that the Prussian military institution is partially responsible for how bad the Great War was, and what drove Germany to ruin.

No disagreements here. I have often argued that the militarism and status of the army as a "state-within-the-state" in Imperial Germany was a fatal flaw that contributed to the empire's eventual collapse. Nonetheless, I continue to maintain that Prussia was the only German state that realistically could have brought about a unified Germany, and whilst the German Empire certainly had its flaws there were a great many positive elements to it as well.

Of course, you could argue that it would have been better had Germany never been unified at all. On that score my feelings are decidedly neutral.

[The East Marches II]

According to the polls last time, Trump was supposed to lose.

Forgive me for not putting stock int that.

Margin of error.

Every goddamn poll had Hillary and Trump within the Margin of error.
Biden’s up by larger percentages than Hillary was across…every demographic, iirc, and in those same polls.

Also, the media reporting was terrible around the polls, which is related, but the underlying numbers were good.

So our media is insane and incapable of reflecting reality. One then wonders why you blindly take their opinion as fact given your acknowledgement of the above.

Hard disagree. No other state besides Prussia could realistically have achieved German unification, other than perhaps Austria; but the Habsburgs' ability to act as an effective leader of the German states was hampered by the fact that most of their own domains were predominantly inhabited by non-Germans and their own interests lay largely outside Germany. Besides, they were Roman Catholics whereas a majority of Germans in that period were Protestant, and in general Protestant populations should not be forced to live under Roman Catholic rulers.

But Roman Catholics should be forced to live under Protestant rulers? In particular, Protestants which are hostile to Catholicism?

Seems like a two-faced argument.

Also, daily reminder that the Prussian military institution is partially responsible for how bad the Great War was, and what drove Germany to ruin.

Being competent in warfighting does tend to keep wars going. What an astounding and deep observation. You out do yourself.

[Cekoviu]

bring back the whigs!

If Horace Greeley is any indication, there will be a lot of neckbeards in the new Whig Party.

there won't be if i have my way -- i am of the (objectively correct) opinion that neckbeards should be illegal

[The East Marches II]

Entente or Central Powers?

A state sponsor of terror used it's proxies to assassinate the heir to the throne of one of Europe's great powers. It is a historical tragedy the Russian throne chose to back a terror state and sparked the big one. C'est le guerre.

[Remaris]

Entente or Central Powers?

A state sponsor of terror used it's proxies to assassinate the heir to the throne of one of Europe's great powers. It is a historical tragedy the Russian throne chose to back a terror state and sparked the big one. C'est le guerre.

Even if you accept this interpretation of the July Crisis at face value, it doesn't justify the Germans' flagrant violation of Belgian neutrality.

[The East Marches II]

A state sponsor of terror used it's proxies to assassinate the heir to the throne of one of Europe's great powers. It is a historical tragedy the Russian throne chose to back a terror state and sparked the big one. C'est le guerre.

Even if you accept this interpretation of the July Crisis at face value, it doesn't justify the Germans' flagrant violation of Belgian neutrality.

Entirely true. That was something of a terrible mistake. The Germans rolled the iron dice and came up short. These things happen in war.

[Salus Maior]

Being competent in warfighting does tend to keep wars going. What an astounding and deep observation. You out do yourself.

Apparently not competent enough.

And part of wise nation-leading is realizing when you can't win a war, or a war is too costly, so you make peace before your entire country collapses.

[The East Marches II]

Being competent in warfighting does tend to keep wars going. What an astounding and deep observation. You out do yourself.

Apparently not competent enough.

And part of wise nation-leading is realizing when you can't win a war, or a war is too costly, so you make peace before your entire country collapses.

Your somewhat hidden Karl shill aside, you are right. But until spring 1918 petered out, the war was very much winnable. Too bad they were shackled to a worthless corpse. Germany's great weakness is no stats in coalition warfare skills.

[The New California Republic]

If Horace Greeley is any indication, there will be a lot of neckbeards in the new Whig Party.

there won't be if i have my way -- i am of the (objectively correct) opinion that neckbeards should be illegal

I was going to say as well that this is the era of 24/7 cameras where personal appearance is important for politicians, but then I remembered Trump, so...

[Remaris]

Apparently not competent enough.

And part of wise nation-leading is realizing when you can't win a war, or a war is too costly, so you make peace before your entire country collapses.

Your somewhat hidden Karl shill aside, you are right. But until spring 1918 petered out, the war was very much winnable. Too bad they were shackled to a worthless corpse. Germany's great weakness is no stats in coalition warfare skills.

If Austria-Hungary was a worthless corpse, what does that make Italy?

[Salus Maior]

Apparently not competent enough.

And part of wise nation-leading is realizing when you can't win a war, or a war is too costly, so you make peace before your entire country collapses.

Your somewhat hidden Karl shill aside, you are right. But until spring 1918 petered out, the war was very much winnable. Too bad they were shackled to a worthless corpse. Germany's great weakness is no stats in coalition warfare skills.

It might have been, but that doesn't really matter. German leadership screwed the Western Front again and again, and despite that still thought that winning the war was around the corner until the very end. Which is just pure arrogance and that's what cost Germany its place in Europe, it's monarchy, and opened the way to an even worse defeat in a couple decades.

I certainly didn't intend my "shilling" for Karl to be hidden. Karl was right, and he rightfully predicted that if they didn't make peace when he attempted to it would cost both him and Wilhelm their thrones and leave their countries open to revolution. Which is exactly what happened.

[Salus Maior]

If Austria-Hungary was a worthless corpse, what does that make Italy?

The worst.

I do kind of feel bad for Cadorno though, from what I understand he really had no choice but to attack the way he did.

[The East Marches II]

Your somewhat hidden Karl shill aside, you are right. But until spring 1918 petered out, the war was very much winnable. Too bad they were shackled to a worthless corpse. Germany's great weakness is no stats in coalition warfare skills.

It might have been, but that doesn't really matter. German leadership screwed the Western Front again and again, and despite that still thought that winning the war was around the corner until the very end. Which is just pure arrogance and that's what cost Germany its place in Europe, it's monarchy, and opened the way to an even worse defeat in a couple decades.

I certainly didn't intend my "shilling" for Karl to be hidden. Karl was right, and he rightfully predicted that if they didn't make peace when he attempted to it would cost both him and Wilhelm their thrones and leave their countries open to revolution. Which is exactly what happened.

Yes, they screwed the Western front so bad that they came within a hair's breadth of winning the game. Oh dear how arrogant to believe that after multiple successful campaigns in the East and breaking the Russian giant that they could win on the Western Front too without having to engage in high intensity warfare on two fronts. You certainly got 'em!

Peace terms that would have required they both go anyways. Austria-Hungary was a polygot state in an era of nationalism. It would not have survived even had it won the war.

Your somewhat hidden Karl shill aside, you are right. But until spring 1918 petered out, the war was very much winnable. Too bad they were shackled to a worthless corpse. Germany's great weakness is no stats in coalition warfare skills.

If Austria-Hungary was a worthless corpse, what does that make Italy?

Good comment :^)

[The East Marches II]

If Austria-Hungary was a worthless corpse, what does that make Italy?

The worst.

I do kind of feel bad for Cadorno though, from what I understand he really had no choice but to attack the way he did.

No, he had an option of not going full retard. The Italians won inspite of their retarded leadership. There is an excellent book on the Austro-Italian front that goes into it if you'd like it. Cadorna and that dog D'Annunzio should have been shot by their own men.

[The East Marches II]

I am going to take a decent lunch, I'll return to bully the Italian high command and Austro-Hungarian corpse later.

[Remaris]

If Austria-Hungary was a worthless corpse, what does that make Italy?

The worst.

I do kind of feel bad for Cadorno though, from what I understand he really had no choice but to attack the way he did.

I always have sympathy for officers placed in unenviable positions by the political leadership, but my sympathy for Cadorna is blunted by his treatment of his own soldiers. He was no Yamamoto Isoroku.

[Salus Maior]

It might have been, but that doesn't really matter. German leadership screwed the Western Front again and again, and despite that still thought that winning the war was around the corner until the very end. Which is just pure arrogance and that's what cost Germany its place in Europe, it's monarchy, and opened the way to an even worse defeat in a couple decades.

I certainly didn't intend my "shilling" for Karl to be hidden. Karl was right, and he rightfully predicted that if they didn't make peace when he attempted to it would cost both him and Wilhelm their thrones and leave their countries open to revolution. Which is exactly what happened.

Yes, they screwed the Western front so bad that they came within a hair's breadth of winning the game. Oh dear how arrogant to believe that after multiple successful campaigns in the East and breaking the Russian giant that they could win on the Western Front too without having to engage in high intensity warfare on two fronts. You certainly got 'em!

Peace terms that would have required they both go anyways. Austria-Hungary was a polygot state in an era of nationalism. It would not have survived even had it won the war.

If anything, Russia's collapse in the face of the war should have been a warning, it was a foreshadowing of the Central Powers' collapse. It was a victory which defeated the Germans by giving them confidence in a war that they couldn't win, especially when the Americans showed up. I also don't think you're really achieving the effect you're advocating for here, TEM. I don't think losing a war that's easily winnable is a sign of military competency.

I don't think being polyglot is a death sentence in an age of nationalism in and of itself. There are plenty of nations that exist today that are polyglot, such as the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India.

[Salus Maior]

The worst.

I do kind of feel bad for Cadorno though, from what I understand he really had no choice but to attack the way he did.

I always have sympathy for officers placed in unenviable positions by the political leadership, but my sympathy for Cadorna is blunted by his treatment of his own soldiers. He was no Yamamoto Isoroku.

As I understand it, Cadorno wasn't even for Italy's entrance in the war in the first place.

[Luminesa]

I am going to take a decent lunch, I'll return to bully the Italian high command and Austro-Hungarian corpse later.

Nice try, good sir...but you’ll have to drink a lot more Tassoni than that with your lunches to atone for your sins, Marches. :^)))

[Remaris]

Yes, they screwed the Western front so bad that they came within a hair's breadth of winning the game. Oh dear how arrogant to believe that after multiple successful campaigns in the East and breaking the Russian giant that they could win on the Western Front too without having to engage in high intensity warfare on two fronts. You certainly got 'em!

Peace terms that would have required they both go anyways. Austria-Hungary was a polygot state in an era of nationalism. It would not have survived even had it won the war.

If anything, Russia's collapse in the face of the war should have been a warning, it was a foreshadowing of the Central Powers' collapse. I also don't think you're really achieving the effect you're advocating for here, TEM. I don't think losing a war that's easily winnable is a sign of military competency.

I don't think being polyglot is a death sentence in an age of nationalism in and of itself. There are plenty of nations that exist today that are polyglot, such as the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India.

I agree that the collapse of Austria-Hungary was never the fait accompli it is often presented as in popular historiography. Many well-known people who actually had the experience of living under the Dual Monarchy remembered it positively after it collapsed. I feel particularly bad for the Hungarians, who were dragged into the war against the will of their government and ended up losing substantial territory as a result.

I always have sympathy for officers placed in unenviable positions by the political leadership, but my sympathy for Cadorna is blunted by his treatment of his own soldiers. He was no Yamamoto Isoroku.

As I understand it, Cadorno wasn't even for Italy's entrance in the war in the first place.

Yamamoto was likewise opposed to Japanese entry into the Second World War, but unlike Cadorna was genuinely liked and respected by his troops and was a competent military leader. Like I said, I always have sympathy for officers placed in unenviable positions, but Cadorna was pretty ruthless in his treatment of the troops under his command. No other army in the war executed such a high number of their own soldiers, and his harshness contributed to the low morale of Italian troops and by extension to Italy's eventual defeat.

[The East Marches II]

Yes, they screwed the Western front so bad that they came within a hair's breadth of winning the game. Oh dear how arrogant to believe that after multiple successful campaigns in the East and breaking the Russian giant that they could win on the Western Front too without having to engage in high intensity warfare on two fronts. You certainly got 'em!

Peace terms that would have required they both go anyways. Austria-Hungary was a polygot state in an era of nationalism. It would not have survived even had it won the war.

If anything, Russia's collapse in the face of the war should have been a warning, it was a foreshadowing of the Central Powers' collapse. It was a victory which defeated the Germans by giving them confidence in a war that they couldn't win, especially when the Americans showed up. I also don't think you're really achieving the effect you're advocating for here, TEM. I don't think losing a war that's easily winnable is a sign of military competency.

I don't think being polyglot is a death sentence in an age of nationalism in and of itself. There are plenty of nations that exist today that are polyglot, such as the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India.

I understand you have a two dimensional view of me but do try to pay attention to a few things I mention and be a big more interested in things outside your narrow field of interest. I have always said the British were the best of world war 1. I have stressed the importance of coalition warfare. Furthermore, I've talked against Whig history as you constantly and rather, as you supposedly study the matter, unprofessionally engage in. Zabecki has a book about the 1918 offensives which cover most of what you mentioned and it has been gone with at length in RWDT when OEP was around. The war was quite winnable even after the American entry. Just because something is winnable, does not mean it will be easy. Competent people make mistakes. Good players lose to great ones. This may come as a surprised to you but Charles Barkley not being about to beat Jordan doesn't make him any less a great player.

As for the other polygot nation's, ah yes, that's why they are historically irrelevant backwaters and have accomplished nothing of note. I suppose not too different then from Austria-Hungary.

[Novus America]

Yes, they screwed the Western front so bad that they came within a hair's breadth of winning the game. Oh dear how arrogant to believe that after multiple successful campaigns in the East and breaking the Russian giant that they could win on the Western Front too without having to engage in high intensity warfare on two fronts. You certainly got 'em!

Peace terms that would have required they both go anyways. Austria-Hungary was a polygot state in an era of nationalism. It would not have survived even had it won the war.

If anything, Russia's collapse in the face of the war should have been a warning, it was a foreshadowing of the Central Powers' collapse. It was a victory which defeated the Germans by giving them confidence in a war that they couldn't win, especially when the Americans showed up. I also don't think you're really achieving the effect you're advocating for here, TEM. I don't think losing a war that's easily winnable is a sign of military competency.

I don't think being polyglot is a death sentence in an age of nationalism in and of itself. There are plenty of nations that exist today that are polyglot, such as the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India.

Well all three of those countries have several problems. The Philippines has a Muslim Separatist rebellion in the South, Indonesia has bee through a lot of craziness and actually India partly broke up even though the core remained together.

But in the Philippines although they have local languages they still have a two national languages that most people speak.

It is possible to have a Polygot country but you still should have a single language at least for your military. The structure of Austria Hungary had real issues, it probably was not sustainable in its form. But it could have possible reformed over collapsed.

[Novus America]

If anything, Russia's collapse in the face of the war should have been a warning, it was a foreshadowing of the Central Powers' collapse. It was a victory which defeated the Germans by giving them confidence in a war that they couldn't win, especially when the Americans showed up. I also don't think you're really achieving the effect you're advocating for here, TEM. I don't think losing a war that's easily winnable is a sign of military competency.

I don't think being polyglot is a death sentence in an age of nationalism in and of itself. There are plenty of nations that exist today that are polyglot, such as the Phillipines, Indonesia, and India.

I understand you have a two dimensional view of me but do try to pay attention to a few things I mention and be a big more interested in things outside your narrow field of interest. I have always said the British were the best of world war 1. I have stressed the importance of coalition warfare. Furthermore, I've talked against Whig history as you constantly and rather, as you supposedly study the matter, unprofessionally engage in. Zabecki has a book about the 1918 offensives which cover most of what you mentioned and it has been gone with at length in RWDT when OEP was around. The war was quite winnable even after the American entry. Just because something is winnable, does not mean it will be easy. Competent people make mistakes. Good players lose to great ones. This may come as a surprised to you but Charles Barkley not being about to beat Jordan doesn't make him any less a great player.

As for the other polygot nation's, ah yes, that's why they are historically irrelevant backwaters and have accomplished nothing of note. I suppose not too different then from Austria-Hungary.

True but the foreign ministry of the German Empire at the time and a lot of its foreign policy decisions were just pants on head stupid.

It is something like Napoleon I and II really. There problems were less internal governance and more fatal foreign policy blunders.