Posted on 06/06/2026 11:52:17 PM PDT by Texan4Life
All these "incestuous" Aristocracies trying to Rule The World . . . I say, Let them ALL Perish ! ! !
I learned things from this AI video. Many interesting photos and film...
"The "Windsor" were actually The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until they decided to change names to conceal their German roots. I don't know how many in the Royal family have been actually British, I do know that Princess Diana was one and perhaps that is the reason why there was no love lost between she and the Windsor, which reportedly she used to call the Huns."
I would not go so far as to call many German historians leftist scum.
However: If you’re not a member of the Social Democratic Party, tenure for you will be very difficult, for those commies have a de facto monopoly in academia.
And you can imagine the corruption inherent in that system.
Hmmm, could you tell me where he wrote this?
Still, I think that you are correct. Ideologically, Marxism and Nazism were antagonists, of course, but maybe Hitler indeed admired the incredible appeal of Marx‘s ideas, the meteoric rise of which was almost without parallels in history.
This appeal is still palpable, even in our time, with too many people still following the tenets of the Marxist pseudo-religion. This, although Marxism has always been abject nonsense.
Her mother was Scottish, not English.
Just read the second half of your post. Never mind.
I wouldn't classify Germany as the victim. It was not the aggressor either. It was one of many major powers caught up in a war brought about by the alliance system and general geopolitics in Europe at the time. Now as for what happened at Versailles, then yes they were clearly the victim there.
According to Ferguson (and others), Germany's leaders went to war because they saw the military balance as turning against her due to the alliance system that its military buildup had provoked. The invasion of Belgium by Germany was a direct affront to Britain's traditional interest in Belgium's sovereignty and neutrality.
Worse, Britain's military chiefs had secretly promised their French counterparts that Britain would declare war against Germany if France was attacked by Germany. This boxed in Asquith and Grey and tipped the scales in favor of a declaration of war against Germany in spite of Britain's inadequate preparations.
What might Europe's leaders have done instead? Crucially, Britain could have called for a pause in all offensive action while the major powers met to find a solution to the crisis. This "Concert of Europe" approach adopted after the Napoleonic Wars had worked in the past to avoid a general European war. My guess is that such peace talks and the economic and organizational strains of mobilization would have led to a settlement instead of what became the Great War.
Was the Versailles Treaty really so onerous? Ferguson, a trained economist, says that it was less severe than the terms that Germany imposed on France after her defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.
Contrary to expectations, France scrupulously fulfilled her obligations, undertaking needed domestic reforms to do so. The resulting era became known as the Belle Epoch, with the otherwise quarrelsome French achieving domestic political and social consensus and major economic and technological gains.
Unfortunately, instead of adhering to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, Germans told themselves that they had not been defeated but instead stabbed in the back by domestic enemies. Germany's governments chose to wreck the country's economy through inflation as a way of repudiating the Versailles Treaty. And the Allies repeatedly eased the terms of the Treaty at Germany's insistence.
Not saying there was a Mad on Russia for what happened to Russian nobility but the nobility across Europe were related. I believe the aristocracy of Germany saw the killing and exiling sans finance of Russian Nobility as a possible harbinger of what was in store for Germany if communism were not controlled. The Brown shirts broke up Communist gatherings and rallies.
"Its" military build up? Germany didn't build up its military any more than the rest of the major powers. The French and Russians were spending more on theirs in relative terms. The Germans were indeed worried that Russia would overtake them given its vast potential but that was no more the case than the Brits and French worry about German having overtaken them already in economic output. In your eagerness to blame Germany you seem awfully quick to excuse the role France played or the even more blatant role Russia played....they bankrolled the Serbs, they backed the Serbs to the hilt even after they'd committed an obvious act of war....even after they lied to the Germans and provoked them by mobilizing on their border knowing full well that was backing the Germans into a corner.
The invasion of Belgium by Germany was a direct affront to Britain's traditional interest in Belgium's sovereignty and neutrality.
True. The Germans didn't want to control or even occupy Belgium, they just wanted transit but its understandable the Belgians weren't prepared to grant it. But at that point the Germans saw this as their only chance to knock France out quickly enough to then be able to pivot and deal with the vast Russian hordes that would be coming from the east.
Worse, Britain's military chiefs had secretly promised their French counterparts that Britain would declare war against Germany if France was attacked by Germany. This boxed in Asquith and Grey and tipped the scales in favor of a declaration of war against Germany in spite of Britain's inadequate preparations.
The Brits could definitely have acted with a whole lot more energy to prevent this situation from coming to a general European war. Grey really failed to do his job.
What might Europe's leaders have done instead? Crucially, Britain could have called for a pause in all offensive action while the major powers met to find a solution to the crisis. This "Concert of Europe" approach adopted after the Napoleonic Wars had worked in the past to avoid a general European war. My guess is that such peace talks and the economic and organizational strains of mobilization would have led to a settlement instead of what became the Great War.
A peace conference in a neutral location....some place like Stockholm that would have been reachable by all. Serbia was in the wrong. Everyone...even the Russians, acknowledged that. For completely understandable reasons, the Austro-Hungarians were not prepared to take the Serbs' word for anything - thus requiring an outside party to investigate the conspiracy and bring the guilty parties to justice. A multinational investigation with complete transparency backed by the threat that Serbia's failure to cooperate would result in them being left to blow in the wind all alone (ie face Austro-Hungarian retaliation without big brother Russia to bail them out) would probably have worked.
Was the Versailles Treaty really so onerous?
YES! It absolutely was. So was Trianon.
Ferguson, a trained economist, says that it was less severe than the terms that Germany imposed on France after her defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.
Let's review those terms. They were not only economic. They laid the blame for the entire war on Germany alone. They carved up German territory and gave it to foreign countries without any concern for subject nationalities, popular sovereignty, democracy, etc etc. They put millions of Germans unwillingly, under foreign rule where they became oppressed minorities. They refused to allow Austria to unite with Germany despite the fact that the Austrians themselves wanted to. They placed restrictions on Germany's military forces so severe that it would be incapable of defending itself - as indeed it was incapable of doing when the French and the Belgians invaded the Saar and Ruhr in the 1920s. As for money, Germany was forced to pay 132 billion gold marks after WWI while France was only forced to pay 5 billion gold Francs after the Franco-Prussian war so I don't agree with Ferguson that the financial terms were even close.
I always found it funny when commentators went on and on about how unjust it was that Germany was demanded "somebody else's land" in Munich in 1938 and the Czechs weren't even consulted etc. Somehow they overlook the fact that the Czechs got somebody else's land.....namely the land of 3 million Sudeten Germans....20 years earlier and the Germans were never consulted about that. Obviously Hitler was an evil SOB, but the German claim to that the Sudetenland should be returned.....or a plebiscite held there which would have had the same result....was completely justified.
Contrary to expectations, France scrupulously fulfilled her obligations, undertaking needed domestic reforms to do so. The resulting era became known as the Belle Epoch, with the otherwise quarrelsome French achieving domestic political and social consensus and major economic and technological gains.
Yes, the supposedly oh so onerous terms of 1871 did not crush France economically. There was no guilt clause. No requirement that France be disarmed to the point of being defenseless. The only territory taken from France was Elsass-Lothringen which had been part of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries and which Napoleon seized a couple generations earlier. Ever been there? Ever heard Alsatians speak their local dialect? Its German. They were just fine being part of Germany by the way. They were not an oppressed minority unlike the Germans in the Sudetenland or in Silesia or the "Polish Corridor" or Danzig....or even Sud Tirol which was given to Italy or Pressburg which the Slovaks flocked into and renamed Bratislava.
Unfortunately, instead of adhering to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, Germans told themselves that they had not been defeated but instead stabbed in the back by domestic enemies. Germany's governments chose to wreck the country's economy through inflation as a way of repudiating the Versailles Treaty. And the Allies repeatedly eased the terms of the Treaty at Germany's insistence.
The Germans inflated the currency and wrecked their own economy in the process because that was the only way to actually pay the crushing debts imposed. The Versailles Treaty was 100% guaranteed to cause another war. Plenty of people at the time saw it and said so. Sure enough, when the first really staunch nationalist came along, the Germans went for it. Unfortunately, instead of the sane nationalist they thought they were getting, the Germans got Hitler.
Compare and contrast Versailles with how Metternich ran the Treaty of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic wars. Despite France having been a serial aggressor, there was no crushing financial burden placed on France. Huge chunks of French territory were not carved out and given to other countries. France was not required to disarm to the point of being defenseless. The French were even allowed to participate in the negotiations unlike the Germans in 1918. Had Clemenceau and Lloyd George been as wise as Metternich had been, there need never have been a second world war. Instead they effectively gave birth to Hitler.
Well, the indemnity payable by France after 1871 was 4 billion gold marks, from which one third was deducted, due to French-government owned infrastructure in Alsace-Lorraine being taken into account. Nobody was forced to leave the region after the German takeover.
In Versailles, Germany had to pay 132 billion gold marks, on top of all assets owned by the German state in the ceded territories. 200 000 people were deported from Alsace-Lorraine after the French takeover. The German trading fleet had to be handed over to the victors etc.
On top, all of it had to be paid in gold or hard currency. Both were hard to get, since Germany had been cut off her export markets by high trade tariffs.
So much for the part of the indemnity per se. I am not talking about the robbery of German patents and the overseas assets of German citizens.
Dr. Ferguson really should really have known better…
On the matter of Dr. Ferguson, it is also important to note that he doesn’t share the views that Germany (the country? Or its government? The ordinary people?)
was to blame for the outbreak of the war.
The Pity of War lays a large part of blame at the feet of Sir Edward Grey.
Wikipedia has a good summary of his views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#World_War_I
The French even drove prime minister Joseph Caillaux from office in 1912 for the unforgiveable sin of trying to reach a peaceful compromise with Germany instead of looking for a chance for war. Feel free to look him up if you doubt it.
I've already discussed the Russians. Wounded pride after the disastrous war with Japan in 1905. They provided money to the Serbs' intelligence service which was directly responsible for murdering Franz Ferdinand and his wife. (incidentally they murdered him because he wanted peaceful relations with Serbia - NOT because he was a firebrand or a warmonger. They were worried that peaceful relations would scotch their plans to acquire the Serbian part of Bosnia which they lusted after).
That's Russia, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary as the aggrieved party. Turkey and Italy were 2nd rate at best each with delicate/wounded pride as a result. That leaves Britain. What did Britain do that was constructive to try to prevent a conflict? Nothing really. Grey whose job it was to oversee foreign relations, just sat on his hands while the time bomb was ticking.
I am 100% in agreement 👍🏻
That’s the problem with the sycophantic pseudo-historians of the Fischer/Mommsen/Wehler et al. mould. They totally failed to examine the motives of the enemy governments.
But what do you expect from so-called scholars who are members of the SPD aka neocommie central?
To be capable of thinking outside of their ideology? That would be the best joke in years 😂😂😂
We are simply not going to agree on either core facts or the logical inferences to be drawn from them.
As Ferguson pointed out (I read the book), the German economy benefitted greatly from the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire. This opened up a large swath of Europe to German trade. That is why the world’s most prosperous bankers at the time on Wall Street willingly financed Germany’s post-WW I economy in spite of the reparations burdens of the Versailles Treaty.
I am inclined to see WW I as due in considerable part to a collective failure of Europe's military and political leaders to anticipate how warfare was changed by the machine gun, concentrated artillery fire, and mass conscription. The bloodshed and long stalemate of the US Civil War ought to have been a warning, but the lesson was not taken up.
“Stalin was preparing to march across Europe “
Yeah that was never going to happen when the war began.
I have a degree in history and a lifetime of reading to my credit. Wilhelm was a dope. His faults though are better comprehended as part of a lack of talent and a failure of understanding by Europe’s leaders at the time. To me, the most astonishing thing is how, in spite of the alliance systems and the concentration of military force in Europe, they did not foresee what a catastrophe a general European war would be.
“Hitler had to postpone his invasion of Russia to bail out Italy in Albania. “
Greece
That's cool. I have a degree in history and a lifetime of reading to my credit. I also speak German and lived in 4 European countries (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland) for years and talked to tons of people from those places to get their perspectives on things. I also checked out a bunch of the military/history museums to further research the subject.
Wilhelm II was a flawed man no doubt. He was not a monster however and he did not callously lead his country into a general European war. They all saw that a Europe-wide war would be bloody. They all thought it would be short. They were all wrong. One thing that really strikes you as you read through the calculations and thinking of each side was just how miserably bad the intelligence information was for several of these countries.
The German army was a full 50% bigger than the French thought (oof!). The Germans and the Russians both way overestimated the Russians. Russia had great potential but they were definitely not there yet in terms of the industrialization process. They were woefully unable to adequately arm and resupply their forces. The Germans really could have fought a purely defensive war since the Russians just weren't that capable after all. Everybody massively underestimated the amount of shells they would need. None of them foresaw how much the technology of the day favored Defensive war over Offensive war.....honestly the end of the US Civil War - ie the 9 month siege of Petersburg should have taught them something. You didn't even need machine guns - just strong entrenchments and the rifled barrel was sufficient to inflict massive casualties on attackers. Everybody underestimated the submarine (that happened again prior to WWII). Everybody over mobilized....they had not learned that sometimes the most efficient way to fight a war is not to put every possible man in uniform...you'd be much better off leaving the farmers in the fields, the train engineers running the railways, some of the skilled factory workers in their factories, etc.
Versailles and Trianon were a flustercuck. Destroying the Hapsburg Empire was always going to create a massive power vacuum in central Europe that was only ever going to be filled by Russia or Germany. There was no other single ethnic group big enough to bring the region stability. A polyglot multinational state like Austria-Hungary was the best possible thing. Blowing it up - with no regard for ethnographic lines - was always going to create a giant mess and a whole lot of bitter grudges.
I dunno if I really go along with the idea that the destruction of the Hapsburg Empire benefitted Germany economically. Germany was already an exporting powerhouse before WWI. The dissolution of the Hapsburg Empire made most of central Europe with the exception of Czechoslovakia (especially the Sudetenland and Czech part) which was the most industrialized part of the Hapsburg Empire poorer than it had been before.
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.