The Best Possible WWI Outcome

Which one is the best of all...?

  • Early Entente victory: massive failure in German offensive at the Eastern front

    Votes: 117 34.0%
  • Early CP victory: German victory at First Battle of Marne

    Votes: 128 37.2%
  • Late, but decisive Entente victory: the Entente forces, plus Americans, drive all the way to Berlin

    Votes: 35 10.2%
  • Late, but not so decisive CP victory: no US entry to the war, successful German Spring Offensive

    Votes: 30 8.7%
  • I have another idea (please explain)

    Votes: 34 9.9%

  • Total voters
    344
Kelenas

The interning of civilians and burning of deserted farms were to stop a continued guerilla campaign, attacking civilians as well as military forces, by hard liners who had refused to surrender when the Boer regular forces did. As such it was the only real way of stopping the die-hard hold-outs. Deaths in the camps were high but that was more because of ignorance in the operation rather than any intent to kill civilians.

Steve


sniff sniff, do i smell the try to make a crime looking good?
what is the difference between boers fighting for their country and belgish people doing the same (being NOT in the army)

one is "terroism" and the other is "freedom fighting"?
Sure... :rolleyes:

nope - the brutally of the brits was a (sad) milestone in the behaviour of people...

in belgium, the german army just did what they did in france - they do not tolerate any "civilian" combatant.

I agree, that cause of the timedelay/losses brutal troop commited crimes, but this was no plan (compare it with the brits in boers area).

so if you really want to compare these two events, the brits are more guilty... but you try to make it "necessary" :rolleyes:

just think about what you wrote...

but i have no big hope for you...
 
This would be the Imperial Germany that used forced labor from nations it occupied to make up for its own labor shortfalls, a behavior adopted as well by its Nazi successor. This would be the Imperial Germany which in any late victory is already Europe's Imperial Japan, run by the generals as opposed to a figurehead monarch.

This is the Imperial Germany that used a genocidal slaughter in Africa, and this is the Imperial Germany that actually unleashed the USSR on Russia and the world. The Kaiser and his army caused both world wars, and the reason this is so is because Germany was already an army with an empire and because the Germans in their infinite wisdom chose to back Vladimir Lenin thinking that he would never last long where he was.

......

Then the Bolshies won the Civil War and all Hell broke loose. And all because of the Kaiser.

On wait - they used the forced workers cause of the british blocade, that tried to starve its enemy? right? should i weep about it? It was war, both sides tried to make the best out of it for themself.
the germans did many things i dislike, same is true for the entente.
Imperial germany never would be like imperial japan - that is pure asb

we also said that "we" preferred the early cp-victory, so the military has not the power it had in otl in late war.
I like it really how certain users manipulate the informations one is giving.

About the genozidial slaughter... true, the hereos were really mistreated (a lot people call it a genozid), but the reaction in germany was so strong that they removed the general... public opinion (including the government) was ashamed of this crime. Compare this with the british reaction to the illtreatment of the boers, or the american public to the killing of the natives... both in the same or near same time (1899-1905 or 1890-1905)... it was a hard time, but the reaction in germany was much better as it was in the usa or uk... and maybe you could think about belgium, the poor little belgium and the congo? compared to this no other nation commited more crimes in this time. do you say all belgium is the centre of evilness?

about the UdSSR? well yes, germany used lenin and gladly (for them) it helped to crush tsaristic russia (no loss). why should they not use it? it helped them (and sideeffect - the finns, baltics, get independent, even popland had been improved by this)
the entente is guilty for the UdSSR... because they won the war but didn´t care about it. nobody else...

the kaiser and his army caused no war - he was partly guilty in ww1.. for ww2 he can´t do a thing. this should be clear, even for someone like you

so i think it is smart that you stop mixing early- and latewar things, end your double morale standards and do just critizise only things people wrote

For you most users (at last the users that take part) are hunns? cause the majority think the early cp-victory would the best solution.

they are all stupid? in germany we say "Ein Geisterfahrer? nein, hunderte"... just guess who are you;)
 
And that excuses those deaths, or the widespread destruction, how, exactly? By your reasoning one could also argue that the German atrocities in Belgium were merely the result of a lack of knowledge/experience regarding counter-insurgency operations.

It doesn't change the fact that in both cases countless people lost their homes, and often even their lives due to those actions. And Britain and Germany were hardly the only ones who's methods were at best harsh, and brutal at worst.

- Kelenas

Kelenas

I didn't say it was an excuse I was simply stating the facts. There was, to the best of my knowledge, no deliberate killing of non-combatants. It was still nasty but since the Boers had started the war and hard liners were still refusing to end it what other options were there? Don't forget the Boer commandos were killing civilians to seek to prevent anybody working with the British and to take resources by force.

In Belgium the Germans took hostages and several times I believe killed them. Also it appears that a number of the alleged cases of resistance activity was nervous troops mis-hearing what they thought were gunshots or cases of friendly fire, then turning on the local civilian population for alleged hostile attacks.

Steve
 
Kelenas

I didn't say it was an excuse I was simply stating the facts. There was, to the best of my knowledge, no deliberate killing of non-combatants. It was still nasty but since the Boers had started the war and hard liners were still refusing to end it what other options were there? Don't forget the Boer commandos were killing civilians to seek to prevent anybody working with the British and to take resources by force.

In Belgium the Germans took hostages and several times I believe killed them. Also it appears that a number of the alleged cases of resistance activity was nervous troops mis-hearing what they thought were gunshots or cases of friendly fire, then turning on the local civilian population for alleged hostile attacks.

Steve


well, you "belive" something... why not think about knowing?

the brits did the boers (women and childs) in concentrating camps with high death rate.. what is that? mass murderer? genozid?

the boers and the belgish people behaved similar, just the belgish had more luck. sure - crimes happend, but the "biggest" crime that will be remembered is the destroyed churches... (this doesn´t mean that crimes doesn´t happen - but compared to the boers these are unimportant - that make them not good - they are still crimes... but in the moment civillians try do play soldiers things get nasty... every time in every war.)

you excuse the british crimes and blame the german ones... if you would blame both you would have high morale ground.. but you are a wanker - ignoring things you dislike and make them small, cause "your" side need to be good.

such "good" side doesn´t exist. in no war.
 
well, you "belive" something... why not think about knowing?

the brits did the boers (women and childs) in concentrating camps with high death rate.. what is that? mass murderer? genozid?

the boers and the belgish people behaved similar, just the belgish had more luck. sure - crimes happend, but the "biggest" crime that will be remembered is the destroyed churches... (this doesn´t mean that crimes doesn´t happen - but compared to the boers these are unimportant - that make them not good - they are still crimes... but in the moment civillians try do play soldiers things get nasty... every time in every war.)

you excuse the british crimes and blame the german ones... if you would blame both you would have high morale ground.. but you are a wanker - ignoring things you dislike and make them small, cause "your" side need to be good.

such "good" side doesn´t exist. in no war.
Belgian not belgish more luck what luck?
Tell me how were theses peoples lucky?
146369.jpg

And here how are they lucky?
DDD1914391T.jpg

And how the peoples even children were shoot how were they lucky?
 
On wait - they used the forced workers cause of the british blocade, that tried to starve its enemy? right? should i weep about it? It was war, both sides tried to make the best out of it for themself.
the germans did many things i dislike, same is true for the entente.
Imperial germany never would be like imperial japan - that is pure asb

we also said that "we" preferred the early cp-victory, so the military has not the power it had in otl in late war.
I like it really how certain users manipulate the informations one is giving.

About the genozidial slaughter... true, the hereos were really mistreated (a lot people call it a genozid), but the reaction in germany was so strong that they removed the general... public opinion (including the government) was ashamed of this crime. Compare this with the british reaction to the illtreatment of the boers, or the american public to the killing of the natives... both in the same or near same time (1899-1905 or 1890-1905)... it was a hard time, but the reaction in germany was much better as it was in the usa or uk... and maybe you could think about belgium, the poor little belgium and the congo? compared to this no other nation commited more crimes in this time. do you say all belgium is the centre of evilness?

about the UdSSR? well yes, germany used lenin and gladly (for them) it helped to crush tsaristic russia (no loss). why should they not use it? it helped them (and sideeffect - the finns, baltics, get independent, even popland had been improved by this)
the entente is guilty for the UdSSR... because they won the war but didn´t care about it. nobody else...

the kaiser and his army caused no war - he was partly guilty in ww1.. for ww2 he can´t do a thing. this should be clear, even for someone like you

so i think it is smart that you stop mixing early- and latewar things, end your double morale standards and do just critizise only things people wrote

For you most users (at last the users that take part) are hunns? cause the majority think the early cp-victory would the best solution.

they are all stupid? in germany we say "Ein Geisterfahrer? nein, hunderte"... just guess who are you;)

1) I suppose that this is the concept that one atrocity justifies another. This is never the case and is the refuge of cranks and cowards who seek to excuse their own actions by blaming those of others.

2) On the contrary, two modern states that are newly fashioned out of older, more anachronistic standards and where the most powerful institution without real checks is the military? The two are more similar than they are different.

3) No, it might arguably have more as opposed to less. The military will be seen as truly infallible and this puts it into military dictatorship faster than what happened in Japan.

4) Again, one atrocity does not excuse another. Colonialism in general is vicious, this is not a license for any belligerent to shoot civilians for the Hell of it. Not sure about the Boer War but there were critiques of Indian genocides, Grant's peace policy and the book A Century of Dishonor which criticized US policy. Monster Smith in the Philippines was brought on court-martial. That Germany did that then is a positive indication that there was a difference between Wilhelm II and Hitler in some things.

5) No, Germany created the USSR. It subsidized Lenin, the Kaiser was stabbing his own cousin in the back and set up his own cousin to be murdered in cold blood by the forces of the new revolution. Germany had as well a chance to make the USSR stillborn and refused to take it. Germany's Rapallo Treaty provided the core of Soviet modern weaponry and combined-arms doctrine emerged in separate direction from the two powers from a long period of collaboration.

6) The Kaiser has full responsibility for wartime policy in Imperial Germany. Full-stop. He was an autocrat and Supreme War Lord in his own concept of himself.

7) No, simply overestimating German military might and reflecting the general Germanophilia of the forum in most things.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
sniff sniff, do i smell the try to make a crime looking good?
what is the difference between boers fighting for their country and belgish people doing the same (being NOT in the army)

one is "terroism" and the other is "freedom fighting"?
Sure... :rolleyes:

nope - the brutally of the brits was a (sad) milestone in the behaviour of people...

in belgium, the german army just did what they did in france - they do not tolerate any "civilian" combatant.

I agree, that cause of the timedelay/losses brutal troop commited crimes, but this was no plan (compare it with the brits in boers area).

so if you really want to compare these two events, the brits are more guilty... but you try to make it "necessary" :rolleyes:

just think about what you wrote...

but i have no big hope for you...
You have been repeated warned regarding insults and trolling. You have gotten several miles of slack because of language difficulties.

You have failed to take the advice and the warnings are apparently ineffective.

For this post and others in this thread:

Kicked for a week.
 
Snake Featherston, the Kaiser was not a complete autocrat, and after 1916 ceased to have much real power, as the generals took over de facto control. The incident with Lenin was appalling, but was probably the generals' fault, being a 1917 incident. Also, preventing the path that Imperial Japan took is another good reason to have an early CP victory, as the generals will not likely be taking control of Germany with such a result. I note with interest that we all seem to agree that an early end to WWI is best, regardless of who wins.
 
Snake Featherston, the Kaiser was not a complete autocrat, and after 1916 ceased to have much real power, as the generals took over de facto control. The incident with Lenin was appalling, but was probably the generals' fault, being a 1917 incident. Also, preventing the path that Imperial Japan took is another good reason to have an early CP victory, as the generals will not likely be taking control of Germany with such a result. I note with interest that we all seem to agree that an early end to WWI is best, regardless of who wins.

The Germans were backing the Bolsheviks from 1915 onward, so there's no blaming the generals for this. An early end to WWI is best, true, but the problem is how to get said early ending. We can all agree that no WWI at all is the absolute best case scenario but it is implausible with a history with a POD any time from the Austro-Prussian War onward.
 
The Germans were backing the Bolsheviks from 1915 onward, so there's no blaming the generals for this. An early end to WWI is best, true, but the problem is how to get said early ending. We can all agree that no WWI at all is the absolute best case scenario but it is implausible with a history with a POD any time from the Austro-Prussian War onward.

Sources, as I have a hard time imagining the Bolsheviks were backed by Germany in 1915, at which time they were a nonentity. And couldn't WWI be avoided if Franz Ferdinand had lived?
 
Sources, as I have a hard time imagining the Bolsheviks were backed by Germany in 1915, at which time they were a nonentity. And couldn't WWI be avoided if Franz Ferdinand had lived?

No, as the European powers were all armed to the teeth, all thought war would be glorious, and all their plans guaranteed a general war if any one Great Power goes to war with another Great Power.

I gotcha source here:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bolshevik-envoy-approaches-german-ambassador-in-turkey

Lenin's rise is the prime example of why backing extremists is never a good idea. Ever. At any point. Even when they aren't in your country.
 

Cook

Banned
The interning of civilians and burning of deserted farms were to stop a continued guerilla campaign, attacking civilians as well as military forces, by hard liners who had refused to surrender when the Boer regular forces did. As such it was the only real way of stopping the die-hard hold-outs. Deaths in the camps were high but that was more because of ignorance in the operation rather than any intent to kill civilians.

If you want a farmer to leave the Commando, put down his rifle and return to the loving arms of his wife and family and take up peaceful farming again it is not a good idea to first burn down his farm and then heard his wife and children into a stinking, overcrowded Concentration Camp where they die of disease caused by your neglect. That sort of thing generally pisses people off and guarantees that they will keep fighting, after all; they no longer reason to go home and a great deal of hatred to motivate them on those long cold nights out on the Velt.

Ignorance of the conditions in the Camps is not a defence for the British High command because repeated warnings were being sent to them regarding the dire urgency of increased rations, tents, blankets and improved sanitation. Milner, Buller and Kitchener chose not to do anything about the warnings because of the cost of providing decent provisioning and because it would have required diverting resources from the Army’s efforts against the Commandoes.

When News of the conditions in the camps got out it caused outrage across Europe and America; the Prince of Wales was even nearly assassinated in Belgium because of it.

Even the official history of the British Army does not try to defend their actions in this case; it was a straight forward war crime.
 
No, as the European powers were all armed to the teeth, all thought war would be glorious, and all their plans guaranteed a general war if any one Great Power goes to war with another Great Power.

Elements thought war would be quick and 'glorious' but a lot in power didn't and were worried about the possible outcome. The alliance structure was a serious problem and there was the danger of a minor crisis spiralling into a massive disaster but I don't think war was inevitable. A few more years might well have seen changes that reduce the likelihood of conflict significantly.



Thanks for that. Interesting that links were established so early. Find it a bit of an oxymoron a 'wealthy Bolshevik businessman':)


Lenin's rise is the prime example of why backing extremists is never a good idea. Ever. At any point. Even when they aren't in your country.

Fully agree. It can look attractive at the time but is a bad mistake. :(

Steve
 
If you want a farmer to leave the Commando, put down his rifle and return to the loving arms of his wife and family and take up peaceful farming again it is not a good idea to first burn down his farm and then heard his wife and children into a stinking, overcrowded Concentration Camp where they die of disease caused by your neglect. That sort of thing generally pisses people off and guarantees that they will keep fighting, after all; they no longer reason to go home and a great deal of hatred to motivate them on those long cold nights out on the Velt.

The problem is what is the alternative? The hard liners have already refused to lay down their arms. Whether willingly or as a result of threats from them the civilian population were being used to supply them. Once it was realised that the camps were causing a lot of suffering and death then something should have been done to correct that but removing the supplies to the guerillas was the only thing that stopped them fighting and killing. Not just the British troops but civilians as well.


Ignorance of the conditions in the Camps is not a defence for the British High command because repeated warnings were being sent to them regarding the dire urgency of increased rations, tents, blankets and improved sanitation. Milner, Buller and Kitchener chose not to do anything about the warnings because of the cost of providing decent provisioning and because it would have required diverting resources from the Army’s efforts against the Commandoes.

When News of the conditions in the camps got out it caused outrage across Europe and America; the Prince of Wales was even nearly assassinated in Belgium because of it.

Even the official history of the British Army does not try to defend their actions in this case; it was a straight forward war crime.

That point I will concede. I knew there was a lot of anger in Britain and elsewhere when details came out but didn't realise the military authorities had been warned and ignored.

Steve
 
I think this report gives a rather different view from the popular myths:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/research_teaching/archive/morbidity/outcomes

Two particularly relevant items are:

Virulent measles epidemics were the greatest single cause of death in these camps and in this war

The problem for the Boers was that they'd been in South Africa for about 250 years and had lost the natural immunity that most Europeans had, so the impact of the measles epidemic was not dissimilar to what happened in the Americas when the disease was introduced.

The second extract is:

At least two other widely-entrenched views about these camps will also be challenged by our research findings: the monolithic assumption that all the camps were the same and remained as depicted in their worst early months; and that the camp populations were static and ‘imprisoned’. What emerges strikingly from the camp registers and records is how much movement there was of people – in and out of camps, between camps and work/self-sufficiency in the nearby towns (which took them off the camp rations list, to the great relief of the camp administrators), from camps to join relatives elsewhere etc

Basically the inmates were not being locked up, but were allowed (for example) to go out to work in nearby towns, provided they were back by curfew. There were no machine-gun posts waiting to mow down 'escapees' as there were with the German concentration camps.
 
Dupplin Muir

Many thanks. That's very interesting. I don't suppose the full report or at least a broader summary is available anywhere please?

Steve


I think this report gives a rather different view from the popular myths:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/research_teaching/archive/morbidity/outcomes

Two particularly relevant items are:



The problem for the Boers was that they'd been in South Africa for about 250 years and had lost the natural immunity that most Europeans had, so the impact of the measles epidemic was not dissimilar to what happened in the Americas when the disease was introduced.

The second extract is:



Basically the inmates were not being locked up, but were allowed (for example) to go out to work in nearby towns, provided they were back by curfew. There were no machine-gun posts waiting to mow down 'escapees' as there were with the German concentration camps.
 
No World War I if possible but a quick Entente victory if there has to be World War I. A German dominated Europe, even dominated by the Second Reich) would not be very fun.
 
1) I suppose that this is the concept that one atrocity justifies another. This is never the case and is the refuge of cranks and cowards who seek to excuse their own actions by blaming those of others.

2) On the contrary, two modern states that are newly fashioned out of older, more anachronistic standards and where the most powerful institution without real checks is the military? The two are more similar than they are different.

3) No, it might arguably have more as opposed to less. The military will be seen as truly infallible and this puts it into military dictatorship faster than what happened in Japan.

4) Again, one atrocity does not excuse another. Colonialism in general is vicious, this is not a license for any belligerent to shoot civilians for the Hell of it. Not sure about the Boer War but there were critiques of Indian genocides, Grant's peace policy and the book A Century of Dishonor which criticized US policy. Monster Smith in the Philippines was brought on court-martial. That Germany did that then is a positive indication that there was a difference between Wilhelm II and Hitler in some things.

5) No, Germany created the USSR. It subsidized Lenin, the Kaiser was stabbing his own cousin in the back and set up his own cousin to be murdered in cold blood by the forces of the new revolution. Germany had as well a chance to make the USSR stillborn and refused to take it. Germany's Rapallo Treaty provided the core of Soviet modern weaponry and combined-arms doctrine emerged in separate direction from the two powers from a long period of collaboration.

6) The Kaiser has full responsibility for wartime policy in Imperial Germany. Full-stop. He was an autocrat and Supreme War Lord in his own concept of himself.

7) No, simply overestimating German military might and reflecting the general Germanophilia of the forum in most things.


Hi,

now i think you should decide what you want
either do we agree that no crime can be justified with another?
so you agree 100% that the british crimes are not to be justified? fine.
i never said something different - i explained, that people should not talk about the crimes against belgish civillians and justify the crimes the brits did. that make them err, you know

the belgish people partly are "guilty" for hard treatment, cause they germans made clear that any civillian that try to fight will be treated hard.
so - without the snipers and "partisans" the belgish civillians had not been suffered so hard.

the brits started the blocade with the purpose to starve a whole nation. only very biased people will justify this and blame the germans for their illtreatmend of the belgish people.

and again, i just reacted to the people who tried to make genozide behavior looking "good" and justify this ("what should the brits do"... you remember?)

the brits attacked the boers, like they did three times before... so we have the warhungry beast United Kingdom that invaded its neighbour. The people of this nation just had no chance to build a regular army (difference to belgium, here the people could be part of the belgish army), and could not wear an uniform (it doesn´t exist one)

the brits just could have gone, they had no right to be in the boers area, they had no right to force the boers to be part of their southern africa.

same is true - but to a lesser degree - to any colonisation power.
the heros were send to the desert to die, by a single general, a general that was removed from power in the moment the german public learned about the "dying order". Is this a huge crime?`yes - but it is an indicator that the kaiserreich wasn´t similar to hitlers nazi regime

does the british publicity react to the fact that the british army put the boers in concentration camps (KZs in german language) and let em die? no, the leading powers had no problem with this.

what do we compare? the democracy Great Britain and the kingdom "Deutsches Kaiserreich".

do i say i want the kaiser back? nope
i just say that the kaiserreich was less evil as some people try to make it and the "good" ones like france (illtreatment in its colonies), belgium (very very bad treatment in its colonies), great britain (very bad treatment of enemies in the colonies), usa (genocidal behaviour against the native americans some years ago) are much worse as some people like to recognize.

about communism - so the germans should not destabilize its enemy russia? the relationship is no single sided aspect.. why do the tsar (a brutal dictator, he suppressed his own people, another "good" one) start the mess by supporting serbia, finance serbia. Do you really think he doesn´t know that supporting panslawismus do not lead to a war with austria and germany? No? Why not?
lenin was the best idea the germans had in ww1. it destabilized the russians and germany "won" the war in the east. what is wrong with this? the same germany (winning ww1) would crush commuism - but to be honest, in a fast german victory they will not send him to russia, so no communism...
another point FOR a fast german victory

about militarism... my, witch country did more wars between 1871 and 1914, germany (full of militarism) or great britain (so democratic)?

german military in 1914 or 1915 will be seen the same way it was seen in 1872-1914, sucsessfull.
Why should this lead to a military dictatorship, it didn´t in 1872

please explain

my point was and is that the best solution (out of 4) is a fast german victory... breaking france is good, destroying balance of power also... i can´t see the world flooded with world wars, but the usa is the sole big world power... do they force their neighbours to do what it want? no

why should this be different? germany will be dominant, say for 40-60 years, but with time this goes down. europe will be spared a second war, it will be saved from the holocaust, communism, nazism.

Harder victories by the entente will not avoid it. Germany still will try to use lenin to destabilize russia, germany will be economically the strongpoint in europe (with the exception of exterminating so many germans, but again this is not realistic in 1919 and make the entente more evil as hitler, mao, stalin and the japanese together... why should this be "better"?) sure, it hurts british pride - but they would be stronger today, that is the ironic thing... isn´t it?
The "empire" will last longer, even if less powerful and without any importance in continental europe (the same situation like today, but more wealth, less dead people, more "pride")

again, what is the problem?

to much propaganda about jerry the childeater?

oh, i critizise the austrian-hungaria treatment of serbian prisoners, they had a real high "death rate"... some could think the austrians "punished" em for being serbian...
 
The best solution would have been a negotiated settlement in 1917 in which Germany withdraws from Belgium. Probably before the Americans joined in may be if Bethmann Holweg had been able to restrain the militarists within the cabinet over unrestricted submarine warfare. Germany could extriactate herself without the degredation of total defeat so that the Nazi party would never have got off the ground anfd peace would have come early enough for the provisional government in Russia to survive.
 
Hi,

now i think you should decide what you want
either do we agree that no crime can be justified with another?

To judge by the rest of your post as I will show, evidently yes, you do believe that this is the case where I do not think that it is.

so you agree 100% that the british crimes are not to be justified? fine.
i never said something different - i explained, that people should not talk about the crimes against belgish civillians and justify the crimes the brits did. that make them err, you know

That makes your argument "one wrong justifies another." What the British do to the Germans is irrelevant to what Germans do to Belgians. It's that simple.

the belgish people partly are "guilty" for hard treatment, cause they germans made clear that any civillian that try to fight will be treated hard.
so - without the snipers and "partisans" the belgish civillians had not been suffered so hard.

Despite that Belgium was created as a neutral buffer zone and violation of neutrality being resisted by armed force was not a war crime by the standard of the time, while the German proclamation was one of collective punishment. That collective punishment mindset is exactly the one that turned into Auschwitz and Treblinka.

the brits started the blocade with the purpose to starve a whole nation. only very biased people will justify this and blame the germans for their illtreatmend of the belgish people.

Blockade is a due and just weapon of war, shooting civilians to cover for the inability of a regular army to defeat irregular forces is neither just nor is it really that effective. It fails militarily and it fails both diplomatically and from propaganda.

and again, i just reacted to the people who tried to make genozide behavior looking "good" and justify this ("what should the brits do"... you remember?)

The blockade was not genocide, not unless all blockades are genocide. Did the USA commit genocide against Cuba under the JFK Administration?

the brits attacked the boers, like they did three times before... so we have the warhungry beast United Kingdom that invaded its neighbour. The people of this nation just had no chance to build a regular army (difference to belgium, here the people could be part of the belgish army), and could not wear an uniform (it doesn´t exist one)

Perhaps this is true, in reality this is both a massive distortion and oversimplification of both Boer Wars, but what precisely do late 19th Century wars over African diamonds and gold have to do with a war starting in 1914 due to Serbian terrorists killing an Austrian archduke?

the brits just could have gone, they had no right to be in the boers area, they had no right to force the boers to be part of their southern africa.

Neither did the Boers have a right to be in the Southern Africa of the Bantu tribes but that's a different matter. Again, what does this situation have to do with World War I?

same is true - but to a lesser degree - to any colonisation power.
the heros were send to the desert to die, by a single general, a general that was removed from power in the moment the german public learned about the "dying order". Is this a huge crime?`yes - but it is an indicator that the kaiserreich wasn´t similar to hitlers nazi regime

On the contrary, it implies that Hitler's primary sin was using the same methods on white people, not the crime itself. Otherwise this particular genocide would be far better known and part of discussions about how the Holocaust happened and the debate over how precisely Hitler went from Medieval ghettoes on steroids to murder factories.

does the british publicity react to the fact that the british army put the boers in concentration camps (KZs in german language) and let em die? no, the leading powers had no problem with this.

The United States did this with regard to Indians, they were called reservations then and reflected practices in the New World dating to the first period of Spanish Imperial rule. The concentration camps were not direct killers, like the Gulag death happened from callousness, not purpose.

what do we compare? the democracy Great Britain and the kingdom "Deutsches Kaiserreich".

I see no comparison here, just distortions and attempts to claim that a square is a circle.

do i say i want the kaiser back? nope
i just say that the kaiserreich was less evil as some people try to make it and the "good" ones like france (illtreatment in its colonies), belgium (very very bad treatment in its colonies), great britain (very bad treatment of enemies in the colonies), usa (genocidal behaviour against the native americans some years ago) are much worse as some people like to recognize.

Had that been what the above said I'd even agree with it, that is not what the above said.

about communism - so the germans should not destabilize its enemy russia? the relationship is no single sided aspect.. why do the tsar (a brutal dictator, he suppressed his own people, another "good" one) start the mess by supporting serbia, finance serbia. Do you really think he doesn´t know that supporting panslawismus do not lead to a war with austria and germany? No? Why not?

Destabilizing the enemy is one thing. Propping up a murderous dictatorial bastard like Lenin and failing to realize what the triumph of communism would actually mean in hopes of short-term gain is quite a different thing and goes into how Germany lost WWII.

lenin was the best idea the germans had in ww1. it destabilized the russians and germany "won" the war in the east. what is wrong with this? the same germany (winning ww1) would crush commuism - but to be honest, in a fast german victory they will not send him to russia, so no communism...
another point FOR a fast german victory

Against Kerensky, sure. They invaded the USSR in 1918 to help ensure that the Baltic states and Finland would still exist but had to evacuate and their role in Belarus and Ukraine was primarily to save for a time the White Russians. There was nothing the Kaiser's bully boys did in Russia that worked well for anyone.

about militarism... my, witch country did more wars between 1871 and 1914, germany (full of militarism) or great britain (so democratic)?

Britain, and again this is a worthy point in one sense but it's not a point you're actually raising when you're claiming that blockades are deliberate mass murder.

german military in 1914 or 1915 will be seen the same way it was seen in 1872-1914, sucsessfull.
Why should this lead to a military dictatorship, it didn´t in 1872

Perhaps because the Germany of 1915 after several decades as a unified Great Power with a strong militaristic overtone is not the infant state of 1872?

please explain

my point was and is that the best solution (out of 4) is a fast german victory... breaking france is good, destroying balance of power also... i can´t see the world flooded with world wars, but the usa is the sole big world power... do they force their neighbours to do what it want? no

Actually the USA does and has done this in the Caribbean and Latin America, less so with Canada. But I'm not sure you're counting Haiti, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico as neighbors here.

why should this be different? germany will be dominant, say for 40-60 years, but with time this goes down. europe will be spared a second war, it will be saved from the holocaust, communism, nazism.

Harder victories by the entente will not avoid it. Germany still will try to use lenin to destabilize russia, germany will be economically the strongpoint in europe (with the exception of exterminating so many germans, but again this is not realistic in 1919 and make the entente more evil as hitler, mao, stalin and the japanese together... why should this be "better"?) sure, it hurts british pride - but they would be stronger today, that is the ironic thing... isn´t it?

A complete collapse of the German military kills the Dolchstosslegende before it's even born.

The "empire" will last longer, even if less powerful and without any importance in continental europe (the same situation like today, but more wealth, less dead people, more "pride")

No it won't. Germany is not Russia, its empire won't even be as stable as the Warsaw Pact which was none too stable as it was.

again, what is the problem?

to much propaganda about jerry the childeater?

Propaganda built on more than a grain of truth, which is what you're both ignoring and claiming is justified.

oh, i critizise the austrian-hungaria treatment of serbian prisoners, they had a real high "death rate"... some could think the austrians "punished" em for being serbian...

Or it could simply be that the Kaiserliche-und-Konigliche Armee was a bunch of rank incompetents who couldn't even win against Serbia and resorted to atrocities out of frustrations, hardly unprecedented in the history of warfare or man's lupineness to man.
 
Top