Posted on 07/21/2023 10:40:19 AM PDT by DallasBiff
Under the Treaty of Versailles, the German emperor was supposed to be tried as a war criminal. Why wasn't he?
The accusations were explosive: a head of state had not only begun an illegal war but egged his troops on to a series of horrific atrocities that left thousands dead and an entire continent in ruins. By then, the accused was one of history’s most hated and debated figures, a monarch known for making erratic decisions and doubling down on his sometimes inexplicable actions.
There was just one problem: The accused, Wilhelm II of Germany, couldn’t testify. The accused had been dead for 75 years
It could have been the trial of the century—if it had been conducted a century before. The trial of Wilhelm II, Germany’s emperor between 1888 and 1918, was a moot one, conducted by historians and legal experts grappling with one of the great mysteries of 20th-century history. Was Wilhelm II guilty of war crimes?
It’s a question that was never answered during Wilhelm’s lifetime. Though the Allies accused him of starting one of history’s bloodiest wars and violating international law, and his troops of committing barbaric acts, he never stood trial. Today, these accusations are remembered as the first stirrings of a modern conception of war crimes. But at the end of World War I, Wilhelm’s responsibility for the bloodshed was a hotly contested—and ultimately unresolved—issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at history.com ...
I will say yes, in the A-H section of Poland, they allowed more autonomy for Poles, than the German and Russian occupied parts.
I’m sad about what happened to Nicky’s family, but I shed no tears for him, because he brutally oppressed the Poles during his rule.
The claims that the Germans were the bad guys and had designs on the whole of Europe are laughable bits of propaganda. Russia and France which were aligned against Germany each spent a higher percentage of their GDP on the military than Germany did prior to the war. I bet you haven't read that little fact in any of the history books. Its damned inconvenient for the preferred narrative.
Had the Russians alone not mobilized, there would have been no war.
There were no good guys in that war, except for the US, only because their presence helped to end the carnage, if for no other reason. But then they blew it, when Wilson let Clemenceau get his way.
I think you’re mostly right but I’d put Russia up there at #2. The Serbs started it. It was clearly state sponsored terrorism. Assassinating a foreign heir apparent was obviously an act of war.
What does anybody think the US would have done had say, the Cubans assassinated the president elect of the United States? Yeah. We all know the Marine Corps would have been sent down there in a very foul mood.
After the Serbs though, the next one I blame the most is Russia. Habsburg retaliation was inevitable. Russia involvement however was not. Russia did not “need” to get in a war over this. There was no vital national interest at stake. Russia had no defense treaty with Serbia. Russia was warned that mobilization - particularly on Germany’s border would leave Germany no choice but to go to war. Then they chose to go ahead and do it anyway.
Then France. They were asked by the Germans point blank if they would give their word not to attack Germany if Russia started a war. Instead of simply promising not to attack they said they would “have to consult their interests”.....meaning yes, they would attack.
A lot of things could have avoided the war, at least would have more or less localized it.
It should have just been between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia.
Britain then brought the Turks into the fray, because of their desire to aid Russia via the Black Sea, and going through the Dardanelles (that’s on Churchill!)
We invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to kill HW Bush.
I don’t see this obligation to get involved in a continental war in Europe. Its true it was helpful for the USA to have the Royal Navy keep the sea lanes open for commerce. That said, the US Navy could have done it had we deemed it necessary.
In any event, its not like the Kriegsmarine was strong enough to wrest control of the seas away from the Royal Navy. Even if they had....so what? Germany was a major trading nation just like the US was. The Germans wanted the sea lanes safe and open for commerce as much as the US did.
Then the Germans said, "Ok, we'll just send Lenin your way! He'll take care of your generals."
I don’t disagree. We should have put more pressure on Britain to lift the blockade, then the U-Boat attacks would have ceased.
And the whole Zimmerman Note thing was BS. The Germans were never that serious about it.
Japan started modernizing after the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Italy was unified in 1860. Germany was reunified in 1871.
These 3 were all latecomers to the empire and colonization game. As a result they didn’t have much by way of colonies and the ones they did have were poor in resources. The British, French, Chinese, Americans and Russians had already carved most of the world up.
Its no surprise that the latecomers were very dissatisfied with this arrangement. They were dependent on others for vital raw materials which could be cut off any time and they didn’t have secure markets which could also be cut off at any time. That was a big part of the cause of WWII.
The irony is that Goebbels learned his propaganda techniques from Edward Bernays and George Creel, the guys responsible for the propaganda that got the US into ‘war fever’.
Yep, Churchill understood this:
Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.
But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”
-Winston Churchill 1934
That response to Germany was why I posted France as wanting war more than Russia. I should have stated it explicitly, but I didn’t. I think Russia sort of stumbled into more then anything. Duh we need to help the Serbs, fellow Slavs and all that.
Everybody was disastrously wrong in their estimates of how long it would last. Another thing that’s amazing is just how bad the French intelligence was about the Germany army. It was over 100 divisions larger than the French realized!
Holy crap! That’s a lot of troops the French failed to account for.
If you read accounts of that war, you’ve got to feel sorry for Von Falkenhayn - Germany’s chief of staff after Von Moltke melted down. He’d tell the Austrians not to do something. They would ignore him and do it anyway. Then they would fail exactly as he told them they would. Then they’d come to him screaming for help. This happened several times.
The Habsburg Empire was interesting and had a real flowering of culture but it was just too internally divided and too inefficient to be able to pull together and fight as a great power. Yet it still had a great power ego and great power ambitions. This made it a really dangerous ally to have.
The problem is, all sides expected it to be a short war. It’s a lot easier to sell a war when people think it won’t last long.
True the Serbs knew that. They knew it because they just insisted on poking the bear over and over and over and over again. Eventually they knew the Austrians would have had enough and would come after them.
The absurdity of the war is best summed up in the various Battles of the Isonzo River, between Austria-Hungary and Italy. It actually became sort of a running joke in “The Great War” series.
The Habsburg Empire was like a mini UN. They had to have everything translated into umpteen different languages. Their army officers were paid substantial bonuses for learning some of the other languages spoken in the empire. They were always walking on eggshells trying not to step on this group's toes over this and that group's toes over that, etc. It was a grossly inefficient mess.....but that is because they were actually trying to treat everybody decently. Stalin would have come in there and ethnically cleansed half the place and murdered tens of millions of others and got everybody so terrified they'd have done whatever he wanted quickly and efficiently. The Habsburgs were far too civilized for that sort of thing. It cost them.
I would consider annexing Bosnia as “poking the bear”.
That’s the stupidity of it all, it should have just stayed between Serbia and A-H.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.