Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
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."
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I do not pretend that European history is my strong suit, but why did Germany invade Belgium, if the problem was Russia, or even France?
In both wars Germany was done in by two things. A two front war and worthless allies. As a central European power Germany was in bad geographical situation to fight a major European land war. The you add in their choice of partners, and you see they were screwed for the beginning. Austria-Hungary was a polyglot nation, large in size, but weak and failing. Italy was a country who had trouble defeating a tribal Ethiopia and was no match for any modern nation in terms of manpower or weaponry. Whether intended or not, once hostilities began Germany was pretty much on its own being squeezed from both sides. I can’t think of single great A-H victory in WWI, and Hitler had to postpone his invasion of Russia to bail out Italy in Albania. Those were precious weeks when you factor in the Russian winter.
Austria-Hungary was a polyglot nation
Hence the saying, “If Diversity is our strength, then Austria-Hungary would have won WWI.”
Blitzkrieg worked against relatively modern countries with good roads and infrastructure.
It was actually the poor shape of Russian roads, that made Blitzkrieg useless, as the rains turned the roads into mud, making the tanks useless.
If Russia had decent roads, the Nazis would have waltzed into Moscow.
And yet, Russia and the world were worse off for losing him.
It was the Freikorps that stopped Germany from going Communist after WWI. Unfortunately, the Freikorps were also where many of the early members of the Nazi Party came from.
In the event, following the plan, it was Germany that made the round of declarations of war that touched off the Great War. They declared war first on August 1, 1914 against Russia, on August 3 against France, and on August 4 against Belgium.
The German declaration of war against France relied on the comically thin and phony pretext that French military aviators had overflown neutral Belgium. The German declaration of war on Belgium cited Belgium's unwillingness to violate her neutrality by permitting German troops to pass through the country on the way to attacking France.
Germany mobilized quickly and invaded Belgium. As it was, the crucial German advance toward Paris faltered due to inadequate concentration of troops, exhaustion, tactical errors, and the Paris garrison famously traveling to battle in taxicabs to stop the Germans short of the city. (The French do have a talent for flamboyant improvisation.)
Similarly, Germany's fleet buildup needlessly antagonized the British. Unlike the globe spanning Royal Navy, the German Navy had one primary and highly provocative offensive goal: to contest Britain's control of the North Sea and her home waters. A much smaller and less expensive navy would have provided Germany with a defensive fleet in being.
No peace intending country would embark on such a course. Even most German historians these days regard Germany as primarily responsible for WW I. Based on archival sources, Hamburg historian Fritz Fischer conducted a detailed analysis of the causes of the war and their connection to the policies of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
As Fischer's seminal work on the subject concluded in 1971: "Given that Germany wanted, desired and covered up the Austrian-Serbian war and, trusting in German military superiority, deliberately chose to enter into conflict with Russia and France in 1914, the German Imperial leadership bears a considerable part of the historical responsibility for the outbreak of a general war."
How was the Schlieffen Plan defensive? It was at the core of Germany’s military strategy before WW I and was offensive in nature. It aimed at defeating France before turning against and defeating Russia.
They didn’t necessarily need to defeat France as much as to simply neutralize it.
Hitler felt the same way about Britain during WWII, where once he figured they were neutered, he could attack The Soviet Union.
That’s right. The Russian army could march across a corn field after the great purge.
Oh yes he was, but Stalin needed time, and a war in the West to do it. His expectation was that the Red Army would be ready by 1943 to make their move, as the German, French and British armies were being bled dry.
But France fell in six weeks, which messed up that plan.
That also explains why the Communists here were the ultimate isolationists, saying that the US should not get involved in the “Imperialist European War”.
That all changed on June 21, 1941.
Yes-a prominent example the history of Joseph Goebbels, a Jesuit trained Catholic who was first a Communist. Then sniffing the power structure shift in Berlin, switched to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (a slightly to the right of the Communist, Labor Socialist party for “the working man” of Germany). The Communists always called the Nazi’s Right Wing. And any idiot historian that refers to Nazi’s as conservative Right Wingers only perpetuates this fraud of the facts. The Communists in Weimar outnumbered the Nazi’s 2 to 1, and Sturmabteilung recruited Communists to join the SA as paid Nazis— they bought a large part of their street support from Communists who were not well financed. Certainly not by Ruhr Valley Theissens and Krupp— who saw Hitler as a controllable manager of their uprising Commie workers in their factories and in govt. Weimar was a disaster.
Goebbels first assignment was to rid Berlin of the Communists, and the Jewish apparatus there- starting there with the Jewish police chief and many staff in the city. The Socialists hired a Communist to clean out the Communists. Same as today- the internecine fights and destruction show the true leaders.
Most people do not realize that post-Peter the Great, the dna of the Romanov dynasty was basically German also.
All Fascists started out as Communists.
Hitler referred to Judge Roland Freisler as “That Old Bolshevik”.
That’s why during WWI, St. Petersburg was changed to Petrograd, to get rid of the German connotations.
Germany wanted to go through Belgium because unlike the French-German border, the French border with Belgium was not fortified.
Stupid French, did they not think the Germans would go through Belgium?
Austria Hungary was the culprit that lit the fuze and dragged the others into it over Serbia. Count von Hötzendorf as Austro-Hungarian Army Chief of Staff had demand war with Serbia many times prior to the assassination of the Arch Duke. Austria Hungary did not want a diplomatic solution with Serbia and they were too militarily weak to do conquer Serbia. They dragged the Germans in and then all the other alliance cards started to play.
Germany's war aims were defensive. It was not seeking to dominate Europe, take over other countries or annex territory that belonged to other countries. The Schlieffen plan was a plan to knock France out QUICKLY. The Germans believed speed was the key to their defense.
In the event, following the plan, it was Germany that made the round of declarations of war that touched off the Great War. They declared war first on August 1, 1914 against Russia, on August 3 against France, and on August 4 against Belgium.
The Germans asked the Russians not to mobilize or at the very least not to mobilize on their border. The Russians promised not to then reneged. They asked the French ambassador if France would pledge not to attack Germany. He responded that France would "consult her interests". The Germans correctly interpreted that as the French openly admitting they would attack Germany if it came to a general European war. The Germans asked both of their neighbors NOT to force them into a war and were rebuffed.
The German declaration of war against France relied on the comically thin and phony pretext that French military aviators had overflown neutral Belgium. The German declaration of war on Belgium cited Belgium's unwillingness to violate her neutrality by permitting German troops to pass through the country on the way to attacking France.
The real casus belli was Russia mobilizing and France indicating it would use the opportunity to attack Germany.
Similarly, Germany's fleet buildup needlessly antagonized the British. Unlike the globe spanning Royal Navy, the German Navy had one primary and highly provocative offensive goal: to contest Britain's control of the North Sea and her home waters. A much smaller and less expensive navy would have provided Germany with a defensive fleet in being.
Here I'm of two minds. Germany had every right to build up a strong fleet just like France had for example and obviously the Royal Navy was the largest and strongest in the world. However just because you have the right to and Germans wanted to for reasons of national pride, that does not mean it was politically wise to do so. It did needlessly antagonize Britain and cost a lot of money and there is no way Germany was going to be able to afford to be a major land power and simultaneously build up a fleet capable of seriously contesting the oceans with the Royal Navy. They'd have been better off saving the money and building a more modest fleet....though once again, it was neither aggressive nor morally wrong for them to want a strong fleet like other European powers.
No peace intending country would embark on such a course.
I disagree. Germany had actually backed down in previous diplomatic kerfuffles in Europe, made more efforts than any other country in Europe to avoid the outbreak of a general war and once again was spending less of its GDP on the military than France or Russia were spending on their respective militaries. No country intent on being an aggressor would have spent as little in relative terms on its military as Germany was given their 2 principle adversaries were spending a greater share of GDP.
Even most German historians these days regard Germany as primarily responsible for WW I. Based on archival sources, Hamburg historian Fritz Fischer conducted a detailed analysis of the causes of the war and their connection to the policies of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Most Germans today are spineless, beaten down, beta cucks with no cultural self confidence at all. Its pathetic. You see it very quickly if you ever live there. They're so afraid of being called "nationalist" that they'll repeat whatever the approved narrative is to avoid the accusation....kinda like the Brits are about being accused of being "racist".
As Fischer's seminal work on the subject concluded in 1971: "Given that Germany wanted, desired and covered up the Austrian-Serbian war and, trusting in German military superiority, deliberately chose to enter into conflict with Russia and France in 1914, the German Imperial leadership bears a considerable part of the historical responsibility for the outbreak of a general war."
Germany didn't necessarily "want" the Hapsburg Empire to go to war with Serbia but they recognized that Austria-Hungary was the injured party and that the Serbs were indeed responsible for it. Therefore the Austro-Hungarians were in the right. How would the US have reacted if for example Cuba (an annoying antagonistic little pissant on our border) had been responsible for murdering the President Elect of the US? The US would declare war and invade. Of course it would. Everybody in the US would see such state sponsored terrorism as an act of war which, indeed it is. Same deal here.
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.