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...