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 ...
“But then why did we suddenly care so much about Asia?”
We had our colony in Asia, the Philippines, and just look at a map.
Written by Viktor Suvorov, a Soviet Army defector, who has written numerous other outstanding books on the Soviet Army. This one is another exceptional book as well ...
The elites virtually never see consequences for their actions and atrocities. Mussolini was a piker.
And, of course, if the American colonists had lost in their revolution, there would not only have not been a Spanish-American War, but no Civil War, and probably no Mexican War ... boy, going back and changing history is so much fun.
The thing was the Soviet Army was preparing for an offensive war and had no plans for a defensive one, Hitler likewise was preparing for a offensive war with Russian, he just happened to attack first and the Russians had no counteroffensive, add to that Stalin was in totally denial and in a mental paralysis as to what to do and waited several critical days before he even was able to respond. The Soviet Army literally had to regroup and figure out what to do. It is estimated that the Russians lost 30 Million in that war.
Stalin signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler with the expectation that the British, French and German armies would bleed each other dry as in WWI, allowing the Red Army to swoop right in.
He didn’t count on France falling so soon.
“But he was alive when the ToV was signed. Not dead for 75 years. Article is confusing.”
I went to the link and read the entire article.
The best I can figure is somewhere around 2016, 75 years after the Kaiser’s death, yet another panel of historians got together to debate whether the Kaiser was a war criminal.
That should have been in the first paragraph but actually appears nowhere in the article.
Hitler should have been prepared to offer the Ukrainians autonomy. He would have had a lot of Ukrainians volunteering to fight the Red Army. That’s a big chunk of land right there.
He didn’t start it, and it wasn’t illegal. Did he forget to get UN permission for his actions in 1914?
You have seen those helmets with long flowing horse tail style manes? British mountain treats still wear them at ceremonial events. It was a holdover from that era, when on parade, that was the mounting point for that long horse tail.
You raise an interesting thing to ponder. Leadership BEFORE the crisis might have been possible. Once the crisis was at hand, I can’t see it as a workable strategy. Nicholas II was a weak man, and defending the Motherland successfully was imperative to justify his rule. Cousin Willie peltered Nicholas with patronizing “advice” and arrogated personal seniority if not outright superiority. Then there is the problem that if your foe mobilizes and you don’t, your military will not be able to catch up — your goose is cooked (someone above mentioned that Wilhelm pushed Nicholas to stop mobilizing — as if that would not have completely derailed archaic Russia’s ability to get back on track). The Russian military, on which Nicholas depended to stay in power, would have ousted him rather than take such a risk. (For how unilaterally not mobilizing works in practice, see Trotsky’s “No War, No Peace” gimmick after Revolutionary Russia declared it was leaving the war — the German Army ate Russian territory like candy).
Asquith and Britain did not have the personal dynamics, but the geopolitical calculus would have been: if Britain does not enter the war, France and Russia will be quickly defeated and collapse, leaving Germany to turn its wolfish eye, and all Europe’s resources, on Britain. Even without an invasion, Britain’s economic and political standing would plummet.
This quote I think reflects more on WW1 than the pre civil war since it was written in the 1930s. Maybe a bit of timeless wisdom. The first sin mentioned in the Bible after the eating of the forbidden fruit is the murder of Abel. Leslie Howard who said this line would become a casualty of the second world war looming at the time only a few years later. Currently we have a senseless slaughter going on in the Ukraine with both sides suffering much.
Read The Sleepwalkers about WWI origins.
The British stayed out of the war until Germany invaded Belgium. Britain wanted the north sea ports be neutral.
He still had a lot of Ukrainians volunteering to kill Russans, e.g. Stephan Banderas crowd.
He still had a lot of Ukrainians volunteering to kill Russans, e.g. Stephan Banderas crowd.
If you had Russians and Ukrainians killing each other, that meant they wouldn’t be killing Germans.
I always wonder though if Germany really wanted the British Empire? Yes, they had no use for the French, but I think they at least respected Britain. They saw Britain more as a rival than an enemy.
True!
After experiencing Holodomor the Ukrainians are particularly motivated to kill Russans and still are!
And as a royal cousin!
France still had that regicide and revolution taint!
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.