And Alsatian isnt a language.
Err, that was my first post in this thread.
And as Ive said before, before the 20thc entury nobody really would have considered Alsatian to be an own language.
Sure, if one keeps in mind it was at the upper end of the demands scale. But sure.Susano,
So, Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" is as good an enunciation of Germany's early wars aims as anything else?
I just want to make sure here.
I explained that in the sentence that was placed right after your quote cutoff.eAnd no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.
You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?
Metz was German speaking, but its surroundings werent. So, yes, arrounding as in "filling the gap between Metz and Alsace". And Alsatian isnt a language.
Susano,
Alsatian isn't a language but everyone just treats it as if it were? Whatever...![]()
And as Ive said before, before the 20thc entury nobody really would have considered Alsatian to be an own language. Now, if ancien regime Alsace used German, it of course would be of Alsatian type, as there was no unified German yet back then - about every HRE principality used its own regional German, too.
And no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.
You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?
Come on. The difference between a language and a dialect is completely arbitrary.
Metz was German speaking, but its surroundings werent. So, yes, arrounding as in "filling the gap between Metz and Alsace".
And Alsatian isnt a language.
I explained that in the sentence that was placed right after your quote cutoff.
Admission? That was a good portion of the point I was trying to make...Also, your contention that Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" represents the upper end of Germany's early war aims is belied by his position as Chancellor and Zimmerwald's own admissions that the many unofficial programs ran the gamut from the punitive to the lax.
There's a huge difference here. (Irish) Gaelic was a 'real language', it was just the language of Papist treasonous peasants, to exaggerate.Susano,
So, Bethmann-Hollwegg's "September Program" is as good an enunciation of Germany's early wars aims as anything else?
I just want to make sure here.
And no one considered Gaelic a real language or Welsh a real language either, except now we've parliaments that deliberate in them.
You've also fhaessig's post stating that the Ancien Regime conducting the local administration of Alsace in Alsatian. That's rather odd if Alsatian wasn't a real language, don't you think?
Bill
The example made of telling a Scotsman that he was English is similarly foolish.
Given such facts, why the hell are the Germans always despicted as the bad guys?
Well, the only victorious treaty that Germany did sign in the great war is Brest-Litovsk and its anything but moderate. Germany lengthened the war in the East by refusing a more moderate version the year before, and then because the Soviets were powerless, they spent the year after signing the treaty worsening it through the campaign for the Caucasus.
It's amazing how Western schools try to make WWI so black and white. Certainly understandable with WW2, but with all the propaganda I got about those evil baby killing Huns, I was surprised when I started doing research on my own and found out it wasn't nearly so morally clear.
Schoolbooks maybe, but everything I've seen or read about WWI made in the West either makes the 2 sides morally equivalent or favors Germany. And this forum is full of people who think the world would have been a better place had the CP won.
Agreed, just about all the major powers could fall into this sense.My sense is that Germany had persuaded themselves that a war was likely.
Time was very much against her and the G-staff understood this clearly. Russia's super quick recovery from 1905 along with (as stated earlier) her (as well as recent French) new conscription numbers only fanned the flames of fear. Just look at her strategic position and you would have to understand her paranoia. Her post-Bismarck diplomacy put her in such a horrid position ... but one she was in nonetheless.The german regime felt that they were more likely to win in 1914 than later.
You seem to forget that although given a 'blank check' it was still the 'dead man walking' Austria-Hungary's move to make in 1914. More to the point for Germany was the Czar. I think Russian mobilization decided Germany's actions more than anything else.So they decided to start the war.
They had no rational identifiable objectives in July 1914, once war started they had to think of things they wanted.
I'm one of those people who think the world would be a better place if the CP won WW1. While the Kaiserriech may not be a utopia it sure as hell beats Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and its continued existence as a superpower would throttle Hitler and counterbalance Stalin, not to mention avoiding the holocaust.