Posted on 02/04/2011 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Evil preys on the weak.
Silly argument. If only the so-called “pacifists” had had their way in 1914. If France, Britain, and Russia had wanted peace, at worst, there would have been a localized war between Serbia and Austria. World War I was unnnecessary. Without that war, we would have never had Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin
Silly argument. If only the so-called “pacifists” had had their way in 1914 the world would be a much better place today. If France, Britain, and Russia had wanted peace in 1914, at worst, there would have been a localized war between Serbia and Austria. Even in the case of Belgium, that country was hardly worth the slaughter of a generation. World War I was unnnecessary. Without that war, we would have never had Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin
And if the US had stayed out, France and Britain would have had no choice but to negotiate an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany, and Germany would have been less likely to want a rematch in 1939.
Exactly. The Kaiser’s regime had its faults but it was a model of liberty and democracy compared to the Soviet Union and Germany.
Wrong. He is an Islamist. This is all about Islam taking over. The stupid sheep in the west are easily manipulated by TV and the media.
When this writer called Soros an anti-War type...he lost ME.
Soros is the biggest war monger of them all.
War on capitalism, heavy collateral damage in U.S.
War on Republicans...collateral damage in the Dummie community (well that is a redeeming fact)
War on Bank of England..Collateral damage among depositors.
War on Israel....collateral damage to be determined.
But pacifists never get their way when someone is bent on having a war. In 1914, it was Kaiser Billy.
Had GB remained steadfast at Munich against Hitler’s demands to annex part of Czechoslovakia WWII might have been averted as well.
It wasn’t just what happened in 1914. That was simply the dénouement. Decades of passivity, ambiguity, and pusillanimity in the face of German aggrandizement and daring predated that fateful year.
“Silly argument. If only the so-called ‘pacifists’ had had their way in 1914. If France, Britain, and Russia had wanted peace, at worst, there would have been a localized war between Serbia and Austria.”
I don’t get it. How would the pacifists have stopped Germany from trying to conquer Europe? Or are you under the impression that Germany didn’t start the war, that it was everyone’s fault, and that “nationalism,” “imperialism,” the arms race, or whatever, were to blame? That’s called “the Sarajevo fallacy,” and, as you could have guessed, is false.
France, Britain, and Russia were no more to blame for the wider war than they were 25 years later.
“if the US had stayed out, France and Britain would have had no choice but to negotiate an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany, and Germany would have been less likely to want a rematch in 1939.”
On the other hand, if they had demanded unconditional surrender and invaded and destroyed imperial Germany, as they did in 1945, they would have avoided the “stabbed in the back” narrative and perhaps Hitler.
Aggrandizement? Not so in the first world war. Yes there was a buildup, but the man who put it all together saw the cornerstone of Germany freedom was his alliance with Austria and Russia. The League of 3 Emperors.
The Kaiser screwed that all up by pushing the Russians to ally with France. Prior to that Germany and Britian had been allies against France.
The premise of the article is immensely flawed, and the author’s take on the events of 1914 are inaccurate.
“an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany”
By the way, there’s been this notion ever since Keynes’ famnous “Carthaginian peace” book—and probably before—that the allies were too harsh on Germany. How a nation that savaged several others without one enemy setting foot on their own soil was like Carthage is beyong me. But nevermind, they started it, and so they deserved rough trade. Or, in the very least, unbalanced treatement.
The Carthaginian thesis has plausibility because of hyperinflation, depression, and Hitler. If you look at it closely, however, that was their own fault, too. Okay, France’s fault partly for being so heavy-handed in occupying the Rhine. But nothing forced Germany to respond in the worst way imaginable, i.e. non-stop printing money.
Anyway, the point is, for whatever reason Germany never fulfilled the supposedly onerous conditions of peace. They never paid the money back; they rearmed, they reoccupied off-limit zones. Given all that, how can we say the peace was to blame? Well, because of the depression and Hitler. But if you didn’t notice, the entire world went through a depression and they didn’t all get Hitlers. Yes, Germany’s depression was in many ways worse, but, again, that was their fault. No one forced them to hyperinflate, not even France.
All this ignores one other possible explanation for Hitler’s rise. The one that he and his ilk were fond of repeating endlessly. This was the famous “stabbed in the back” excuse. Germany didn’t really lose, they rationalized, because no one invaded Germany. Also, because Germany can’t lose. I mean, come on, they’re Germany! Needless to say, a harsher peace could’ve convinced them otherwise, as it did in ‘45.
“Yes there was a buildup”
Exactly. Everyone saw the “Germany problem” rising. France, obviously, but also Britain. Which is why they tried to stop them from building a navy. But they didn’t try very hard, and all along the line Germany smelled their weakness. And that is why they pounced, because they thought everyone was too weak to stop them. They should have been convinced otherwise.
“The Kaiser screwed that all up by pushing the Russians to ally with France. Prior to that Germany and Britian had been allies against France.”
Don’t drown in diplomatic tangles and geopolitical confusions. The bare facts are that Germany was seen as a lesser power, desperately wanted to alter that condition, and eventually went to war in order to control the European continent. The deals they made along the way are historical curiosities, but only serve to make the larger story fuzzy.
It would be as we explained the Soviet Empire of the Cold War period in terms of their shifting alliances with Poland and China, or whatever, ignoring completely their intent to dominate the globe. Germany’s cannot be understood outside of power politics, and were in no way amenable to normal diplomatic relations.
“It would be as we explained the Soviet Empire...” = It would be as IF we explained the Soviet Empire...
Germany was responsible?
Russia was responsible for the 1st world war. They were the first power to throw their weight around. Had the alliance between Russia and Germany stayed around, the world would not have gone to war.
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.