- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let’s have a WWI discussion. Which country is most at fault for it?
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:20 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:20 pm to fr33manator
Did the Germans use that excuse as justification? I can not remember right now.
Eta: the GERMAN confederation did sign the Treaty of London.
Eta: the GERMAN confederation did sign the Treaty of London.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 4:25 pm
1
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:22 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
All depends Japan for putting Pearl Harbor the worst before 9/11 or that of the Germans and Naz* Concentration Camps.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:27 pm to JPPT1974
Eh the Germans definitely wanted War and pretty much egged Austria-Hungary to make crazy demands to Serbs. The Germans absolutely wanted Russia to mobilize, just as much as the French did. And once the war started the U.S had to make sure the Allies won for the good of all civilization.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:28 pm to tigahbruh
quote:
I'm not arguing against you but I am questioning one point: The US arms industry was nothing compared to what it became during WWII. Much of our military equipment going into the war in 1917/1918 was French and British. Was our "war material" support really capable of making a difference?
What we provided more than anything was raw materials and food to the Allies. Vital things like iron ore, coal, lumber, etc. things that the Allies were as short of even shorter in supply of than the Germans. The difference was they could get these things from America, while Germany could not.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:30 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
I’d say Germany number one because they really didn’t have to start invading folks.
Number two is Russia because they were “mobilizing” for a war they had no business being involved in and had no means to fight.
Number three is Great Britain because they really didn’t have to send troops in because of Belgium. Think about it, would we send in troops against Russia if they invaded any of the Baltic countries? On paper they are allies. But I’d say probably we wouldn’t launch nukes over Estonia. Britain didn’t have to send forces. If they don’t, Germany “wins”, forces France into another treaty, which they had just a few decades earlier and the world didn’t end. Russia gets its arse kicked anyway, and Europe goes on. Without WW2, the Holocaust, Cold War, Israel, War on Terror, etc.
Number two is Russia because they were “mobilizing” for a war they had no business being involved in and had no means to fight.
Number three is Great Britain because they really didn’t have to send troops in because of Belgium. Think about it, would we send in troops against Russia if they invaded any of the Baltic countries? On paper they are allies. But I’d say probably we wouldn’t launch nukes over Estonia. Britain didn’t have to send forces. If they don’t, Germany “wins”, forces France into another treaty, which they had just a few decades earlier and the world didn’t end. Russia gets its arse kicked anyway, and Europe goes on. Without WW2, the Holocaust, Cold War, Israel, War on Terror, etc.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:33 pm to alajones
quote:
I’d say Germany number one because they really didn’t have to start invading folks.
Once Russia began mobilization, Germany had no other choice. They could not allow Russia to complete mobilization while France (who was a treaty ally of Russia) was still a threat to their west. For Germamy to sit back, do nothing, and wait while Russia completed mobilization would have been national suicide from the German’s perspective.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 4:35 pm to alajones
That's actually part of the geopolitical discussion with NATO now.
Britain actually had a big debate about honoring the treaty with Belgium.
Imagine the craziness if we had that debate now if Russia ever tries to be uppity outside the old pact.
Then we got Turkey breaking rank too.
Britain actually had a big debate about honoring the treaty with Belgium.
Imagine the craziness if we had that debate now if Russia ever tries to be uppity outside the old pact.
Then we got Turkey breaking rank too.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 5:04 pm to Darth_Vader
Yea and they paid for it when Germany decided to bum rush their arse.
I'm no expert on ww1 but from what I do know Russia fricked up by being the first heavyweight to start climbing the ropes and Germany said frick it and threw the first heavyweight punch. In their position I get why they did it, but they still did it.
I agree about the us. We weren't shooting, but we kept their guns loaded
I'm no expert on ww1 but from what I do know Russia fricked up by being the first heavyweight to start climbing the ropes and Germany said frick it and threw the first heavyweight punch. In their position I get why they did it, but they still did it.
I agree about the us. We weren't shooting, but we kept their guns loaded
Posted on 4/4/19 at 5:05 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
The Banks that financed both sides
They didn’t have a country til after ww2 baw
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:08 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Once Russia began mobilization, Germany had no other choice.
Eh.
Disagree.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:20 pm to upgrayedd
The only thing that is off with that is the assassination of the Duke is a little more severe than split beer. If someone kills our president we are going to war.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:21 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
IIRC it was started with an assassination of, or attempt, on one of the countries leaders.
but they were all itching to start a war because they all wanted a war
but they were all itching to start a war because they all wanted a war
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:24 pm to upgrayedd
"German rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium"
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:27 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Alliances
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:33 pm to beerJeep
quote:
If Germany hadnt invaded Belgium, Britain would have stayed out, a lot of innocent men wouldn’t have died for nothing
FIFY.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:34 pm to alajones
quote:
Once Russia began mobilization, Germany had no other choice.
Eh.
Disagree.
Please explain what other course of action was available to Germany once Russia began mobilization.
But before you answer that, do you even understand the significance of a country mobilizing for war at that time? I ask this becususe if you did know, you’d not disagree.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 6:51 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Now, this leads us to Great Britain. Unlike Russia, Austria, Germany, and France, they were not treaty boud to come into the war. What they did was take Germany’s invasion of Belgium (part of the Schliefen plan’s “strong right hook” strategy) and use it as a pretext to enter the war on the side of the Allies. It was their involvement that threw the Schliefen plan off track. It was the British at the Battle of the Marne that stopped the Germans. Had they not done this, the war would have ended probably within months with the end result being little more than some adjustments to the European map. But instead, thanks to the British, the Germans were prevented from knocking France out of the war. This is what made the already general European war into what we now know as World War I.
So while the lions share of blame for starting the war lays with Russia, the blame for the war turning into the massive meat grinder that sent Europe into the abyss lays with Great Britian.
And, the end result of Great Britain's involvement is the speeding up of the dissolution of the British Empire. They spent so much in money and human life (much of it colonial troops already looking for independence) that their hold on overseas possessions was greatly weakened. A quick victory by Germany doesn't hurt Britain. No Second World War drains Britain again and she likely keeps a lot of her Empire together*.
*No matter the outcome India wasn't going to remain in the fold much longer.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 7:46 pm to NYNolaguy1
Can't fault the Germans for invading Belgium. It was effectively the only solution they had for what they saw as an inevitable two front war. Speed was the key to defeat France in time to receive Russia's massive blow in the east. The only way the Germans saw to speedily defeat France was to go around their border defenses. The only way around those border defenses was through Belgium.
And by 1914, that was the only contingency they had for a major war against France and her allies.
And by 1914, that was the only contingency they had for a major war against France and her allies.
This post was edited on 4/4/19 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 4/4/19 at 7:53 pm to Ancient Astronaut
quote:You go to Croatia and hang a right.
Where’s Bosnia-Herzegovina ????
I was sent to Sarajevo 30 days after the Dayton Accord was signed ending the most recent Balkan war. Mines were still being cleared by detonation along where the opposing lines were when the shooting stopped.
Posted on 4/4/19 at 8:03 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
They didn’t have a country til after ww2 baw
Who?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News