...But it is still fact that Serbians caused WWI, not Germans. That is the point here.
The Serbs committed a trivial act. The Germans turned it into a war-starter. Without the Germans the assassination starts nothing.
Russia was the instigator, diving into Serbia when the Austria-Hungarians retaliated there after the assassination of the Archduke. The Germans were allied with them, and decided to invade Louxemburg and Belgium, which resulted in war with France. The Brits, an Empire in their own right at the time, decided to declare war on Germany.
Once Germany looked East, the Russians ended up getting their asses beat, and then had a revolution. The Germans had the upper hand in the West after that, at least until the US got involved. By then, however, they had revolution problems of their own, which is why they retreated and sued for peace.
Ahem. Germany had been unified since 1871. Great Britain joined because of alliance obligation in the face of German aggression.
Hitler was a genocidal lunatic who is as close to evil as we may ever see. He was also, quite possibly, the most brilliant propagandist and motivator the world has ever seen... and his timing was impeccable. If he had only used his power for good instead of evil.
In today's world, he's be some really famous motivational speaker making millions selling his book on TV.
The French fought more than one war trying to stop that. The British jumped in because they were scared ****less that the Germans might actually be their equal on the battlefield and pre-emptively jumped in.
There is no truth to any of that. Between 1815 and 1914 France and Germany fought exactly once, in 1871. The Brits fought in 1914 because they were obligated by treaty to support France. They already knew the German army was superior.
As I recall the Brits only jumped in when the Germans crossed into Belgium. Had they stayed out or the French launched their own attack into Belgium(not beyond the realm of possibility) they may well have stayed neutral
Germany declared war on France 3 August. Britain declared war on Germany 4 August.
The Serbs committed a trivial act. The Germans turned it into a war-starter. Without the Germans the assassination starts nothing.
Yes. Your point?
Learn, then post.
1. Hitler's desensitization to human suffering and his cheapening of human life may been the result of the three years he spent running between the trenches of WW1, where he served as a sort of messenger service. FYI: He received the Iron Cross for his efforts.
2. His hate of Jews could have been a result of propaganda he himself was fed early on in life, especially as to why Germany lost WW1.
4. Germany did get a raw deal after WW1, and the allies definitely exploited the little country in a very inhumane fashion. At the very least, he had a right to hate France, US and England.
5. The part of Poland he attacked had always been a part of Germany. It was land stolen by France, England and the US which was then given to Poland.
Well, we are all products of our environment. I think it is worthwhile examining the factors that made Hitler who he is. I highly doubt he was just born evil.
Who gives a damn what gave his inner child an owey? To hell with the bastard.
Again, who gives a damn what caused the nasty little SOB to hate Jews? Most murderers have cooked up some reason to hate their victims.
I don't care two hoots in hell who the Germans hated, or why. If you choose to make a fight, you have no call to pout after the other guy has beaten the living daylights out of you. They called the tune, and they paid the piper.
Baloney. Nations do not "steal" territory. They usually--as in this case--acquire it as a result of winning a war.
Which is very interesting to find ways to avoid such people developing and gaining power in future. But it is no excuse for his ultimate behavior.
Of course there is no excuse, but does it not make sense to find out where the bad behavior originated? I, for one, do not believe bad people are just evil and then walk away saying, "Well, that's that."
I'm not limiting it to FischerFischer does not write as a victor. He is a German writing about Germany.
As I said. It is interesting to me to understand, so that we can prevent future evil doing.
Yes. An attempt to revise Fischer. I'm not persuaded.
Fischer does not write as a victor. He is a German writing about Germany.
Furthermore he does not represent German historians on the matter. Not even the average of them.I'm not limiting it to Fischer
In the entire course of the war the Russians never set foot in Serbia. The German war plan always called for a first strike in the West, the Schlieffen plan, an overwhelming right hook through Belgium and around Paris. The French counted on their Russian allies to attack Germany and, it was hoped, draw off German strength from their expected western offensive. Great Britain was tied to France and Russia by treaty.
On 29 July, Russia, in support of its Serb protégé, unilaterally declared – outside of the conciliation procedure provided by the Franco-Russian military agreements – partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary. German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was then allowed until the 31st for an appropriate response. On the 30th, Russia ordered general mobilization against Germany. In response, the following day, Germany declared a "state of danger of war." This also led to the general mobilization in Austria-Hungary on 4 August. Kaiser Wilhelm II asked his cousin, Tsar Nicolas II, to suspend the Russian general mobilization. When he refused, Germany issued an ultimatum demanding the arrest of its mobilization and commitment not to support Serbia. Another was sent to France, asking her not to support Russia if it were to come to the defence of Serbia. On 1 August, after the Russian response, Germany mobilized and declared war on Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Escalation_of_violence_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Or falling in to the same trap. Hate sells. That is something we can clearly see with the Hitler phenomena.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?