Then I see you really have no point but to suggest that the deaths of millions of allied soldiers was for nothing. But it is you who should be explaining why there was a right side to me instead of the other way around.
I'll thank you not to attribute positions to me that I do not hold, and I have not in the least suggested that the deaths of Allied soldiers were for nothing. The deaths of soldiers from all combatant parties were for nothing. WWI is the most tragic example of a completely avoidable conflict in history. It was for nothing and accomplished nothing other than set the stage for even more bloodshed in WWII.
That's some pretty heady speculation.
So you think the Germans wanted something less than to rule the world then? What gives you that impression?
Yes, I do not think that the Germans wanted to 'rule the world', or desired it to any particular degree greater or lesser than any of the other involved parties.
Ever since Germany defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, all the major powers of Europe had been considering plans for the next war, seen as inevitable given the conflicting ambitions of the major powers.
Germany had the Schlieffen Plan and the French Plan XVII. Austria-Hungary had Plan B and Russia Plan 19.
>>> Do you think that young English men in the British Army at no time were used 'to keep the natives in line'?
What sort of a question is that? One can't separate the end of the British colonial empire from the world wars of the 20th century.
I haven't tried to.
My grandfather on my father's was a US Marine in WWI and all of his brothers were in uniform, as well. I believe my grandfather on my mother's side was in the Navy. It's too bad you can't ask them why they fought.
Why? The opinions of individual soldiers or sailors have precious little to do with the plans of empires and armies.
My mother warns me to this day that the Germans will do it again.
Quite frankly, having lived, worked and gone to University in Germany, and having been married to one, I speak from some experience: your mother is wrong.
My father's right arm is nearly useless now after the injuries from a German 88mm AAA burst near his B24 have caught up with him.
Which applies to WW1 and the motivation of the powers involved in it exactly how?
Good luck trying to explain to me why WWI and WWII weren't part of the same process, and why western civilization wasn't equally threatened by both events. Maybe you think that because war is hell that it's wrong. I'm sure all the countries that were attacked in 1917 felt the same way.
Oh, please. Get real. I haven't suggested that WW1 and WW2 were not part of the same 'process', as you put it, or sequence of events. WW1 led directly to WW2, and Western Civilization was most certainly threatened. Those facts have nothing to do with my prior statements.
WW1 was, for lack of a better term, wrong. Stupid, pointless and totally avoidable.
As to the countries that were attacked, the alliances that were in place at the time assured that blame could be equally placed all around.