"Russia First" German strategy in ww1?

[steamboy]

..............both dammit

Fear the Belgians ultimate weapon, the gravity defying tap (or faucet if you live across the Atlantic)!

 

[TDM]

Is it because of their mayonnaise or roundabouts?

..............both dammit

well you know who else has lots of roundabouts?


Britain!

, so well there we go!

 

[ArtosStark]

Fear the Belgians ultimate weapon, the gravity defying tap (or faucet if you live across the Atlantic)!

 

[TDM]

Fear the Belgians ultimate weapon, the gravity defying tap (or faucet if you live across the Atlantic)!

You see think of all the time and effort they wasted doing that they could have spent letting the Germans invade them, selfish much?!

 

[Cryhavoc101]

well you know who else has lots of roundabouts?


Britain!

, so well there we go!

I hold them totally responsible for that as well.

 

[steamboy]

I hold them totally responsible for that as well.

You forget that Roundabouts and stick shift drive (IE manual) vehicles are our main line of defence against American invasion.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

You forget that Roundabouts and stick shift drive (IE manual) vehicles are our main line of defence against American invasion.

And according to gun jesus - narrow roads

 

[DougM]

yeah EVERYONE wanted peace but the war just happpened on its own all by itself…
If GB wanted peace they could have had it, but the coat was to much, they A) wanted to protect Belgium to keep the Channel safer and more private (same reason the warned the German nave not to attack France) C) wanted to protect its allies. and D) wanyted to have a seat at the table that dictated the restructuring/future of Europe.
France wanted peace but preferred to get revenge on Germany and get A/L back.
Belgium wanted peace but A) was licated in the middle between Germany and France (not Belgiums fault) but knew this and did basicly nothing to keep its nutral status (and was in fact much more in the French/English camp). B) was not will to give in and let Germany through (also understandable, but they COULD have done so.
Germany wanted peace but prefered to A) “ Protect it allie” and B prefered to fight the war at that time vs in a few years when it figured its navy would ne weaker vs GB and its army weaker compared to Russia.
Russia wanted peace but preferred to increase its power and influence in the Balkins.
AH wanted peace but preferred to go to war in order to help internal politics as well as to increase its power/influence in the area.
Serbia wanted peace but A) didnt do enough to stop the conspirators, B) didn't protect the visiting royals C) refused to accept (admittedly horrible) terms. So while Serbia was arguably the. most innocent of all the counties even they COULD have done things differently so the war flash point doent happen on their watch.
And the USA didnt want to get involved but still sold to one side and not the other, let one side blockade the other, allowed its citizens to travel on one sides ships into a war zone and put it finances behind one side…

The truth is that all the counties expected a war, all of them to one degree or another had reasons to want to fight the war sooner /now vs taking actions yo prevent the war.

As i have said. No one is conpletly innocent (But Serbia and Belgium are pretty close).

 

[steamboy]

Oh indeed, WW1 was a Crown Princes of Europe Production for the most part and looking back with hindsight its insane how it started. But the earlier post where the UK getting invovled clearly lead to the Nazis killing Jews in The Final Solution was one massive reach of a claim.

 

[oldironside]

Oh indeed, WW1 was a Crown Princes of Europe Production for the most part and looking back with hindsight its insane how it started. But the earlier post where the UK getting invovled clearly lead to the Nazis killing Jews in The Final Solution was one massive reach of a claim.

It's not a reach. It's an insult to millions of people who sacrificed to fight against Fascism. "Britain caused the Holocaust" is a pathetic attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany's crimes against humanity. One step more ridiculous than blaming Tiim Berners-Lee for the content of Gary Glitter's harddrive.

 

[steamboy]

well I was trying to be polite but yeah, totally accurate.

 

[kham_coc]

It's not a reach. It's an insult to millions of people who sacrificed to fight against Fascism. "Britain caused the Holocaust" is a pathetic attempt to whitewash Nazi Germany's crimes against humanity.

Certainly - Weaponizing hunger and starving civilians though, that one is on the UK.

 

[Aphrodite]

There is a reason a cabinet that did not want to go to war, still set out policies that lead to war - And that is because a minority wanted war, and with the conservatives they had the votes.

In a nutshell, this is it.

After the ultimatum, Linchowsky went to see Grey. He asked if Germany agreed to the naval restrictions and left Belgium alone would Britain stand aside. Grey blew him off with "well it would greatly affect public opinion"

Not much to risk your country on

 

[CalBear]

Wow, that's a lot of strange assumptions and irrelevant details. I feel there is quite a bit of repetition in this discussion, so this will be my last comment and will be general.

WW1 was the result of a chain reaction, in which every country had the choice to go to war or not (except Belgium), as stated several times in this thread. The best thing, of course, is that there had been no war. Second best is that the war is limited to (eastern) Europe, as an 'east first' strategy seems to do.

The British decision to go to war is the crucial link that turned this European war into a world war. With that, Britain is also responsible for the further spread of the war, for 'winning' in the west, 'Versailles', WW2, holocasut, cold war, conflicts in the middle east, etc, etc. Congratulations Britain!

In OTL, the reason why Britain went to war is at least clear: To defend France. In TTL, France doesn't need defense, in fact, it chooses the offensive! This completely changes the political situation, makes those cabinet discussions irrelevant, and takes away the need for Britain to go to war.

Britain is solely responsible for WW II, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and, presumably water fluoridation?

To use a term that I rarely reach for - Preposterous.

 

[CalBear]

Is it because of their mayonnaise or roundabouts?

Roundabouts are Crimes Against Humanity.

 

[Aghasverov]

Roundabouts are Crimes Against Humanity.

I like roundabouts... beats a lengthy stoplight, a 4-way stop (where nobody in the US understands the rules o' the road anymore), or turning left across traffic (grrrrr... "Michigan left, you assholes!") ANY day of the week

I like stick shifts too...

 

[CalBear]

I like roundabouts... beats a lengthy stoplight, a 4-way stop (where nobody in the US understands the rules o' the road anymore), or turning left across traffic (grrrrr... "Michigan left, you assholes!") ANY day of the week

I like stick shifts too...

I LOVE rowing through the gears. We are, however, a dying breed.

I hate roundabouts with the same passion. They are great IF you ALREADY KNOW where you are going to turn by sight. Totally suck if you don't. I would up getting spit out of one so many times that I had to do a NASCAR style tire change, left sides only! (Well, maybe not that bad, but I swore I was going to cut through a chain link fence if I was dumped back onto the freeway one more time.)

 

[vizzer]

Certainly - Weaponizing hunger and starving civilians though, that one is on the UK.

Although Germany could have avoided this simply by demobilising troops back to the farms & using nitrogen for fertilizers rather than explosives.
But they preferred to keep men in uniform & take food from civilians to feed their troops.

 

[ArtosStark]

Certainly - Weaponizing hunger and starving civilians though, that one is on the UK

From context and prior discussions I am going to presume that you are referring to the blockade.

The blockade operated through a number of legal channels. Several of them were pretty well founded in international law. Others were more murky as to their exact purpose and limitations. The addition of foodstuffs to the contraband list was only permitted under the Principle of Retaliation. This basically allowed a nation to undertake actions that would have otherwise been illegal in the event that their opponent undertakes illegal action. Its similar to the idea that POW's would not be mistreated as that would allow your own soldiers to be mistreated by those that captured them. It was basically the only type of enforcement international law had at the time. In this case the contraband list was expanded in response to the announcement of the submarine blockade of the UK (USW) in 1915.

A more detailed legal breakdown can be found here (https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/29/2/459/5057062) if you are interested.

As to the implication that it is a crime against humanity... Its unlikely. The definition of a crime against humanity according to the UN is defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
   1. Murder;
   2. Extermination;
   3. Enslavement;
   4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
   5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
   6. Torture;
   7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
   8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
   9. Enforced disappearance of persons;
   10. The crime of apartheid;
   11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
   1. ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

It could perhaps be argued that the blockade could fit under the banner of "Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health".

However, the use of Blockade is recognized even in modern international law under Article 42 of the UN Charter. The San Remo Manual (a legally recognized but not legally binding document) establishes rules for the use of blockade, including items not allowed to be listed as contraband:

150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:

(a) religious objects;
(b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;
(c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;
(d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles;
(e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
(f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict,

Note that food is still not included in this document.

Whether Britain is morally reprehensible for blockading materials that could be used to feed civilians is a larger question, and likely depends on your perspective. But they were not legally at fault for doing so at the time, nor would they be today unless bound by another treaty not to do so. Those parts of the blockade that would nowadays be subject to legal challenge mostly relate to the treatment of neutrals, not Germany itself.

 

[steamboy]

I LOVE rowing through the gears. We are, however, a dying breed.

I hate roundabouts with the same passion. They are great IF you ALREADY KNOW where you are going to turn by sight. Totally suck if you don't. I would up getting spit out of one so many times that I had to do a NASCAR style tire change, left sides only! (Well, maybe not that bad, but I swore I was going to cut through a chain link fence if I was dumped back onto the freeway one more time.)

Behold, the roundabout near where I use to live, they've changed it now but it wasn't called The Magic Roundabout for nothing.