What should the United States, Britain, and France, have done differently regarding Germany, and Europe, at the End of World War One?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 145219
  • Start date
My point is that the territorial concessions against the German Empire were not harsh in a pragmatic sense, only a nationalist one, and as a result, Germany's industrial capacity would be able to launch a war of reconquest. like it did.

so no one is allowed to gain from thier defeated enemy? you've already said the territory was too harsh in Europe.

the thing is, i don't think you can make a 'just and fair peace.' because the attempts to do so have all failed; the concert of Europe lasted ~20 years before the crimean war brought russia and britain to war. the war of the Spanish succession and then the Austrian were the first treaties where all parties were primarily concerned with the balance of power and fairness to the states involved, and wars kept coming.
And none involved the not yet existing German empire.
okay i think i see the problem. you're thinking of Germany as a victimized nation, and I'm seeing it as an aggressive empire.
Confusing Germany with France or the British ?

Wars of the July Monarchy (1830–1848):
  1. Liberal Wars (1828–34)
  2. French conquest of Algeria (1827–1830–1857)
  3. Belgian Revolution (1830–31)
  4. First Carlist War (1833–1840)
  5. First Franco-Mexican War (1838–1839)
  6. Uruguayan Civil War (1839–1851)
  7. First Franco-Moroccan War -1844
  8. Franco-Tahitian War (1844–1847)
  9. Bombardment of Tourane -1847
Wars of the Second French Republic (1848–1852):
  1. First Italian War of Independence (1848–1849)
  2. French invasion of Honolulu (1849)
Wars of the Second French Empire (1852–1870):
  1. Taiping Rebellion (1850–1871)
  2. Bombardment of Salé (1851)
  3. Crimean War (1853–1856)
  4. Second Opium War (1857)
  5. Siege of Medina Fort (1857)
  6. Cochin China Campaign (1858–1862)
  7. Second Italian War of Independence (1859)
  8. Second Franco-Mexican War (1862–1867) 31,962 Mexicans killed (including 11,000 executed)
  9. Shimonoseki Campaign (1863–1864)
  10. French campaign against Korea (1866)
  11. Garibaldis Expedition to Rome 1867
  12. Franco-Prussian War (1870–71)

Wars of the French Third Republic (1870–1940):
  1. Annexation of the Leeward Islands (1880–1897)
  2. French conquest of Tunisia (1881)
  3. Mandingo Wars (1883–1898)
  4. First Madagascar expedition (1883–1885)
  5. Sino-French War (1884–1885) at least 10,000 killed
  6. Tonkin Campaign (1883–1886) at least 10,000 killed
  7. First Franco-Dahomean War (1890)
  8. Second Franco-Dahomean War (1892–1894)
  9. Franco-Siamese War (1893)
  10. First Italo-Ethiopian War (1894–1896)
  11. Second Madagascar expedition (1894–1895)
  12. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  13. Boxer Rebellion (1899)
  14. Rabih War (1899–1901)
  15. Uprising in Madagascar 1904–1905
  16. Ouaddai War (1909–1911)
  17. French conquest of Morocco (1911–1934)
  18. Zaian War (1914–1921)
  19. First World War (1914–1918)
  20. Volta-Bani War (1915–1917)
  21. Kaocen revolt (1916–1917)
  22. Thái Nguyên uprising (1917–1918)
  23. Occupation of Constantinople (1918–1923)
  24. Hungarian-Romanian War (1918–1919)
  25. Franco-Turkish War (1918–1921)
  26. Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1920)
  27. Luxembourgish rebellion (January 1919)
  28. Bender Uprising (1919)
  29. Franco-Syrian War (1920)
  30. Rif War (1920–1927)
  31. Great Syrian Revolt (1925–1927)
  32. Kongo-Wara rebellion (1928–1931)
  33. Yên Bái mutiny (1930)
Wars of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1817–1922):
  1. Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818)
  2. Greek War of Independence (1821–1829)
  3. First Ashanti War (1823–1831)
  4. First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
  5. British attack on Berbera -1827
  6. Revolt of the Mercenaries -1828
  7. Baptist War (1831–1832)
  8. First Carlist War (1833–1840)
  9. The 6th Xhosa War (1834–1836)
  10. Rebellions of 1837 (1837–1838)
  11. Pastry War (1838–1839)
  12. First Anglo-Afghan War (1838–1842)
  13. First Opium War (1839–1842)
  14. Second Egyptian-Ottoman War (1839–1841)
  15. Battle of Tenggarong (1844)[33]
  16. First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846)
  17. The 7th Xhosa War (1846–1847)
  18. Caste War of Yucatán (1847–1901)
  19. Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–1849)
  20. Battle of Tysami -1849
  21. The 8th Xhosa War (1850–1853)
  22. Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864)
  23. Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–1853)
  24. Crimean War (1853–1856)
  25. Second Opium War (1856–1860)
  26. Anglo-Persian War (1856–1857)
  27. Indian Rebellion of 1857 (1857–1858)
  28. Bombardment of Kagoshima -1863
  29. British Expedition to Abyssinia (1867–1868)
  30. Klang War (1867–1874)
  31. Third Ashanti War (1873–1874)
  32. Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880)
  33. Anglo-Zulu War -1879
  34. ‘Urabi Revolt (1879–1882)
  35. Basuto Gun War (1880-1881)
  36. First Boer War (1880–1881)
  37. Mahdist War (1881-1899)
  38. Third Anglo-Burmese War -1885
  39. Sikkim Expedition -1888
  40. Anglo-Manipur War -1891
  41. First Matabele War (1893–1894)
  42. Anglo-Zanzibar War -1896
  43. Second Matabele War (1896–1897)
  44. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  45. Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901)
  46. Second Boer War (1899–1902)
  47. Mahsud Waziri blockade (1900–1902)
  48. Anglo-Aro War (1901–1902)
  49. British expedition to Tibet (1903–1904)
  50. Bazar Valley campaign -1908
  51. First World War (1914–1918)
  52. Estonian War of Independence (1918–1920)
  53. Latvian War of Independence (1918–1920)
  54. Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1920)
  55. Turkish War of Independence (1919–1923)
  56. Third Anglo-Afghan War -1919
  57. Kuwait–Najd War (1919–1920)
  58. Irish War of Independence (1919–1921)
  59. Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920 -1920
  60. 1922 Burao Tax Revolt -1922
Wars of the German Empire (1871-1918)
  1. Nauruan Civil War (1878–1888)
  2. First Samoan Civil War (1886–1894)
  3. Abushiri Revolt (1888–1889)
  4. Hehe Rebellion (1891–1898)
  5. Bafut Wars (1891–1907)
  6. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  7. Second Samoan Civil War (1898–1899)
  8. Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901)
  9. Adamawa Wars (1899–1907)
  10. Venezuelan Crisis (1902–1903) a naval blockade imposed against Venezuela by Great Britain, Germany, and Italy from December 1902 to February 1903
  11. Kavango Uprising (1903)
  12. The famous Herero Wars (1904–1908), fixed to correct German numbers listed as Hereros numbers
    • German losses 1,541 dead KIA: 676, MIA:76, WIA: 907, died from disease: 689, civilians: 100) - Bridgman, Jon M. (1981) Revolt of the Hereros University of California Press, p. 164
    • Hereros losses - As many as 65–70,000 including civilians - Bridgman, Jon M. (1981) Revolt of the Hereros, p. 164
  13. Maji Maji Rebellion (1905–1908)
  14. Sokehs Rebellion (1910–1911)
  15. World War I (1914–1918)
germany was a nation, yes, but its imperial dreams and the fact it led a revisionist bloc against the entente-based status quo (italy wanted the med and balkans, AH to oust the russians, Germany against France and britain) are what are informing my perspective. As a result, what you see as crimes against a people, I'm viewing as 'a defeated power getting off very generously considering the scale of the conflict.'
Describing France and its post 1870 overseas wars and expansion ?
German lands that remembered being a separate country?
Sounds like the French Empire.
wilson was a massive part of the negotiations. however, he lost the midterms and thus was not able to get it through congress.
If Wilson was a real neutral, the Entente loses WW 1 due to the US breaking the blockade to sell food, and refusing to sell weapons and weapons precusor chemicals to the Entente nations. Not to mention large war loans.
And Germany was doing similar in 1905. All the great powers knew a war was coming. I'm not saying Germany was uniquely evil, but that it had the most to gain from winning a great power war and thus was the most aggressive in the 1890s and beyond.
Germany was winning the Economic competition. The Kaiser was for standing pat. The Russian's encouraged the Serbs in their Balkan issues due to not getting Constantinople a few years earlier.

What could Germany gain from a great power war ? They already had Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismark opposed for multiple reasons).
AH was viewed as ramshackle and would not withstand a major war. Conrad and Co wanted one for domestic reasons. The Kaiser wanted no part of the war, but his ministers and ambassadors worked around him to encourage, rather than discourage AH. He always chose peace, which exasperated the war hawks in the military and administration.*

On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented "But that eliminates any reason for war" [Fischer, Fritz (1967). Germany's Aims in the First World War. P 71] or "every cause for war falls to the ground" [Fromkin, David (2004). Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914, P 218].

Wilhelm's sudden change of mind about war enraged Bethmann Hollweg, the military, and the diplomatic service, who proceeded to sabotage Wilhelm's offer.[Fisher, P 72] A German general wrote: "unfortunately... peaceful news. The Kaiser wants peace... He even wants to influence Austria and to stop continuing further."[Fromkin, P 219] Bethmann Hollweg sabotaged Wilhelm's proposal by instructing Tschirschky not to restrain Austria-Hungary. [You must most carefully avoid giving any impression that we want to hold Austria back. We are concerned only to find a modus to enable the realization of Austria-Hungary’s aim without at the same time unleashing a world war, and should this after all prove unavoidable, to improve as far as possible the conditions under which it is to be waged., Fischer, p. 72] In passing on Wilhelm's message, Bethmann Hollweg excluded the parts wherein the Emperor told the Austro-Hungarians not to go to war. [Fromkin, p. 219.] Jagow told his diplomats to disregard Wilhelm's peace offer, and continue to press for war. General Falkenhayn told Wilhelm he "no longer had control of the affair in his own hands". Falkenhayn went on to imply that the military would stage a coup d'état, and depose Wilhelm in favour of his son the hawkish Crown Prince Wilhelm, if he continued to work for peace. [Fromkin, p. 219.]

Bethmann Hollweg mentioned two favourable conditions for war in his telegram to Vienna: that Russia be made to appear the aggressor forcing a reluctant Germany into war, and that Britain be kept neutral.[Fischer, p. 72.] The necessity of making Russia appear the aggressor was the greater concern to Bethmann Hollweg because the German Social Democratic Party had denounced Austria-Hungary for declaring war on Serbia and ordered street demonstrations to protest Germany's actions in supporting Austria-Hungary. [Fromkin, p. 221.]

If one accepts the case that Germany saw an inevitable war now, with AH as an ally, as a better chance to survive than waiting until later to get swamped, its a defensive measure. They saw a future war as hopeless; AH was seen as unlikely to survive the Passing of Franz Joseph, once Franz Ferdinand died, and due to the increasing size and reforms of the Russian Army and improvements in its Railroads (thanks to French money).

France could field 95 divisions in 17 days, including 85 infantry divisions (46 regular, 2 Colonial, 25 reserve and 12 territorial) and 10 Cavalry divisions.
Russia could field 150 divisions in 3 months, including 114 infantry divisions and 36 cavalry divisions.
Germany fields 106 divisions in 16 days, 95 Infantry divisions (51 regular, 32 reserve, 6 Ersatz, 5 Landwehr, 1 Marine) and 11 cavalry divisions.
UK fields 7 divisions, 6 infantry divisions and 1 cavalry division.
AH fields 63 divisions in 17+ days, 52 infantry divisions (34 regular, 8 Honved, 8 Landwehr, 2 Landstrum) 11 cavalry divisions (9 regular, 2 Honved)
Serbia 10 Infantry 1 Cavalry Division

Central Powers = 169 Divisions, 147 Infantry, 22 Cavalry
Entente = 273 Divisions, 225 Infantry, 48 Cavalry

Germany had no real goals on the continent and wanted no more Catholic lands (Austria-Hungary, Poland, Czecks, Sudetenland, Slovaks, Poles all Catholic). Thats one reason they failed to assimilate A/L, along with no local self-rule and the affair where garrison officers killed locals. Germany would have done better to emulate how the French handled resistance in Nice/Savoy.
 
Last edited:
What could Germany gain from a great power war ?
Kill Russia. The Germans were afraid that with the Russians modernizing they would not be able to contain them (which is true). So they wanted to emasculate Russia before the country modernized. If I'm not mistaken, they had calculated that they could no longer defeat the Russian Empire in a war after 1920. That was the German objective in the war to kill Russia. France was secondary.
Germany had no real goals on the continent
I don't know what you are reading about Germany but it is very wrong. The great German dream for europa was to make Mitteleuropa. Using the Russian territories removed from the Bresklotov treaty to have infinite resources. Creating a Europe that revolves around Germany (basically an authoritarian European union). A pan-Germanist state-centric imperium.
and wanted no more Catholic lands (Austria-Hungary, Poland, Czecks, Sudetenland, Slovaks, Poles all Catholic).
Austria-Hungary was in the long term a German vassal state. Everything you mentioned is in a package called austria hungary (apart from poland, kind of).
 
Austria-Hungary was in the long term a German vassal state. Everything you mentioned is in a package called austria hungary (apart from poland, kind of).
When, how?
> Without WW1 A-H wouldn't lose its agency, it was a Great Power for a reason (GNP equal to France's, fast growth, population 80% of Germany, abundant natural resources, etc.),
> if the Central Powers win, external threats to (read: German leverage over) A-H are reduced/eliminated, so A-H has no reason to submit to Germany, and
> if the Central Powers lose then Germany has absolutely nothing over A-H.

Aside from the case during the desperate wartime situation, A-H is simply too big to simply become subservient to Germany.
 
.
I don't know what you are reading about Germany but it is very wrong. The great German dream for europa was to make Mitteleuropa. Using the Russian territories removed from the Bresklotov treaty to have infinite resources. Creating a Europe that revolves around Germany (basically an authoritarian European union). A pan-Germanist state-centric imperium
Basically a stronger EU W/O the French/Belgian influence, exploiting its neighbors to the East and South while burying them in debt.
 
When, how?
Before WW1 Australia was doing very well economically. Not bureaucratically or militarily. But economically it was flying. But It had a very poor diplomatic dependence on Germany, and during the war it ended up becoming a vassal.
> if the Central Powers win, external threats to (read: German leverage over) A-H are reduced/eliminated, so A-H has no reason to submit to Germany, and
If the central powers win, German leverage will not be weaker. will be stronger than ever. They will never have independence to make really vital decisions. With the victory of the CP, who, curiously enough, will do well (if they don't lose Arabia, it's the Turks).
Germany has absolutely nothing over A-H.
In this case there is not even A-H
 
Entente Active Army Strengths.jpg

Note the French Army exceeds the size of the German Army,
Active Army Strengths.jpg

The Gap between the Entente and Central Powers Manpower averages 104% of Central Powers Manpower.
Army Spending.jpg

The gap in Army spending between the Entente and Central Power Averages 64.4% of Central Powers spending.
Germany reduced Naval new construction Spending to increase readiness and Army Spending in 1912, thus conceding the Naval Arms race.
 
Last edited:
The third image doesn't show up for me, until I start typing a reply, and not sure if it will remain visible.

EDIT: nope, it only shows as a test link. No idea what the problem is, not how to fix it. When I try to just click the text link, I get an error message.

EDIT2: When I click on your post, I get this:
View attachment 871863
but when I click on my post's text link, I get the image as intended. Hope that helps.
Try it now.
 
Kill Russia. The Germans were afraid that with the Russians modernizing they would not be able to contain them (which is true). So they wanted to emasculate Russia before the country modernized. If I'm not mistaken, they had calculated that they could no longer defeat the Russian Empire in a war after 1920. That was the German objective in the war to kill Russia. France was secondary.
1917. They were afraid of the Russian Steamroller for good reason.
Russian War Plan 19 (the one they used)
Russia could field 150 divisions in 3 months, including 114 infantry divisions and 36 cavalry divisions:
42 divisions (including 32 infantry and 10 cavalry) were deployed facing East Prussia ;
64 divisions (including 46 infantry and 18 cavalry) facing Galicia
24 divisions (including 19 infantry and 5 cavalry) along the Baltic and Black Sea coasts
20 divisions (including 17 infantry and 3 cavalry) in Siberia and Turkestan.

German Forces in East 15 Infantry Divisions (1, 2, 35, 36, 37, 41 Regular Infantry Divisions, 1, 3, 35, 36 reserve Infantry Divisions, Goltz, 3, 4 Landwehr Infantry Division) 1 Cavalry Division plus 1 Ersatz and 5 Landwehr Infantry Brigades, 1 Landwehr and 1 Ersatz Cavalry Regiments in Fortresses and 3 Landwehr Infantry Brigades in the field.

I don't know what you are reading about Germany but it is very wrong. The great German dream for europa was to make Mitteleuropa. Using the Russian territories removed from the Bresklotov treaty to have infinite resources. Creating a Europe that revolves around Germany (basically an authoritarian European union). A pan-Germanist state-centric imperium.

Austria-Hungary was in the long term a German vassal state. Everything you mentioned is in a package called austria hungary (apart from poland, kind of).
AH had a booming economy and population. Its issues were with leadership, Franz Joseph and his circle, the Army High Command with a Russian Spy and Hungary not willing to spend money on the Army. The army paid dearly for the lack of numbers of modern Artillery, low numbers, poor health service and gear, and poor strategic plans. They had modern weapons, but no shells and not enough guns and plans that would have challenged the German Army.

Comparison of Russian, German and Austrian Division Organizations 1914

Austrian Field Army Northern Front August-September 1914 (Facing Russia)

Austrian Field Army In the Balkans August-September 1914
 
Last edited:
Germany reduced Naval Spending to increase Army Spending in 1912, thus conceding the Naval Arms race.
No, they just increased Army spending. Naval Spending had been steady at about £22m per year and there was no reduction. It was increasing to cover a higher readiness set by the 1912 Naval Law novelle.
 
And none involved the not yet existing German empire.

Confusing Germany with France or the British ?
not once did i say that france and britain weren't aggressive empires? but in the context of a peace deal focused on and in europe, in a European war, Germany and her alliance were the aggressive party? i genuinely don't see the contradiction
Wars of the July Monarchy (1830–1848):
  1. Liberal Wars (1828–34)
  2. French conquest of Algeria (1827–1830–1857)
  3. Belgian Revolution (1830–31)
  4. First Carlist War (1833–1840)
  5. First Franco-Mexican War (1838–1839)
  6. Uruguayan Civil War (1839–1851)
  7. First Franco-Moroccan War -1844
  8. Franco-Tahitian War (1844–1847)
  9. Bombardment of Tourane -1847
Wars of the Second French Republic (1848–1852):
  1. First Italian War of Independence (1848–1849)
  2. French invasion of Honolulu (1849)
Wars of the Second French Empire (1852–1870):
  1. Taiping Rebellion (1850–1871)
  2. Bombardment of Salé (1851)
  3. Crimean War (1853–1856)
  4. Second Opium War (1857)
  5. Siege of Medina Fort (1857)
  6. Cochin China Campaign (1858–1862)
  7. Second Italian War of Independence (1859)
  8. Second Franco-Mexican War (1862–1867) 31,962 Mexicans killed (including 11,000 executed)
  9. Shimonoseki Campaign (1863–1864)
  10. French campaign against Korea (1866)
  11. Garibaldis Expedition to Rome 1867
  12. Franco-Prussian War (1870–71)

Wars of the French Third Republic (1870–1940):
  1. Annexation of the Leeward Islands (1880–1897)
  2. French conquest of Tunisia (1881)
  3. Mandingo Wars (1883–1898)
  4. First Madagascar expedition (1883–1885)
  5. Sino-French War (1884–1885) at least 10,000 killed
  6. Tonkin Campaign (1883–1886) at least 10,000 killed
  7. First Franco-Dahomean War (1890)
  8. Second Franco-Dahomean War (1892–1894)
  9. Franco-Siamese War (1893)
  10. First Italo-Ethiopian War (1894–1896)
  11. Second Madagascar expedition (1894–1895)
  12. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  13. Boxer Rebellion (1899)
  14. Rabih War (1899–1901)
  15. Uprising in Madagascar 1904–1905
  16. Ouaddai War (1909–1911)
  17. French conquest of Morocco (1911–1934)
  18. Zaian War (1914–1921)
  19. First World War (1914–1918)
  20. Volta-Bani War (1915–1917)
  21. Kaocen revolt (1916–1917)
  22. Thái Nguyên uprising (1917–1918)
  23. Occupation of Constantinople (1918–1923)
  24. Hungarian-Romanian War (1918–1919)
  25. Franco-Turkish War (1918–1921)
  26. Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1920)
  27. Luxembourgish rebellion (January 1919)
  28. Bender Uprising (1919)
  29. Franco-Syrian War (1920)
  30. Rif War (1920–1927)
  31. Great Syrian Revolt (1925–1927)
  32. Kongo-Wara rebellion (1928–1931)
  33. Yên Bái mutiny (1930)
Wars of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1817–1922):
  1. Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–1818)
  2. Greek War of Independence (1821–1829)
  3. First Ashanti War (1823–1831)
  4. First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
  5. British attack on Berbera -1827
  6. Revolt of the Mercenaries -1828
  7. Baptist War (1831–1832)
  8. First Carlist War (1833–1840)
  9. The 6th Xhosa War (1834–1836)
  10. Rebellions of 1837 (1837–1838)
  11. Pastry War (1838–1839)
  12. First Anglo-Afghan War (1838–1842)
  13. First Opium War (1839–1842)
  14. Second Egyptian-Ottoman War (1839–1841)
  15. Battle of Tenggarong (1844)[33]
  16. First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–1846)
  17. The 7th Xhosa War (1846–1847)
  18. Caste War of Yucatán (1847–1901)
  19. Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–1849)
  20. Battle of Tysami -1849
  21. The 8th Xhosa War (1850–1853)
  22. Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864)
  23. Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852–1853)
  24. Crimean War (1853–1856)
  25. Second Opium War (1856–1860)
  26. Anglo-Persian War (1856–1857)
  27. Indian Rebellion of 1857 (1857–1858)
  28. Bombardment of Kagoshima -1863
  29. British Expedition to Abyssinia (1867–1868)
  30. Klang War (1867–1874)
  31. Third Ashanti War (1873–1874)
  32. Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1880)
  33. Anglo-Zulu War -1879
  34. ‘Urabi Revolt (1879–1882)
  35. Basuto Gun War (1880-1881)
  36. First Boer War (1880–1881)
  37. Mahdist War (1881-1899)
  38. Third Anglo-Burmese War -1885
  39. Sikkim Expedition -1888
  40. Anglo-Manipur War -1891
  41. First Matabele War (1893–1894)
  42. Anglo-Zanzibar War -1896
  43. Second Matabele War (1896–1897)
  44. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  45. Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901)
  46. Second Boer War (1899–1902)
  47. Mahsud Waziri blockade (1900–1902)
  48. Anglo-Aro War (1901–1902)
  49. British expedition to Tibet (1903–1904)
  50. Bazar Valley campaign -1908
  51. First World War (1914–1918)
  52. Estonian War of Independence (1918–1920)
  53. Latvian War of Independence (1918–1920)
  54. Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1920)
  55. Turkish War of Independence (1919–1923)
  56. Third Anglo-Afghan War -1919
  57. Kuwait–Najd War (1919–1920)
  58. Irish War of Independence (1919–1921)
  59. Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920 -1920
  60. 1922 Burao Tax Revolt -1922
Wars of the German Empire (1871-1918)
  1. Nauruan Civil War (1878–1888)
  2. First Samoan Civil War (1886–1894) 16 dead
  3. Abushiri Revolt (1888–1889)
  4. Hehe Rebellion (1891–1898)
  5. Bafut Wars (1891–1907)
  6. Cretan Revolt (1897–1898)
  7. Second Samoan Civil War (1898–1899)
  8. Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901)
  9. Adamawa Wars (1899–1907)
  10. Venezuelan Crisis (1902–1903) a naval blockade imposed against Venezuela by Great Britain, Germany, and Italy from December 1902 to February 1903
  11. Kavango Uprising (1903)
  12. The famous Herero Wars (1904–1908) 1,541 dead - Bridgman, Jon M. (1966) Revolt of the Hereros University of California Press. p. 164 (KIA: 676, MIA:76, WIA: 907, died from disease: 689, civilians: 100)
  13. Maji Maji Rebellion (1905–1908) 397 dead
  14. Sokehs Rebellion (1910–1911) 5 dead
  15. World War I (1914–1918)
okay all other points aside you do realize it's a tad unfair to go all the way back through all of the 19th century for the other two and then not even include the north german confederation and prussia's wars right? it genuinely wouldn't even add that much but this framing makes it look like Germany just appeared one day pre-1870 and the prussian government never did anything wrong before unification.
Describing France and its post 1870 overseas wars and expansion ?

Sounds like the French Empire.
yes, this also describes french colonies. but again, germany's aggression was in europe, so that's where I'm focusing the discussion. and to act as though Germany is an immutable concept wherein them losing any land is a crime against god and nature is rediculous.
If Wilson was a real neutral, the Entente loses WW 1 due to the US breaking the blockade to sell food, and refusing to sell weapons and weapons precusor chemicals to the Entente nations. Not to mention large war loans.
blockades have always been accepted in the rules of warfare with only occasional diplomatic challenges. and what does this even have to do with my statement of him being part of the negotiations?
Germany was winning the Economic competition. The Kaiser was for standing pat. The Russian's encouraged the Serbs in their Balkan issues due to not getting Constantinople a few years earlier.
he wasn't the only one in government. most of the reichstaag was itching for a fight.
What could Germany gain from a great power war ? They already had Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismark opposed for multiple reasons).
  1. a greater sphere of interest in eastern europe
  2. a cut down to size russia
  3. colonies all over the world
  4. greater Poland if they wanted it
  5. the ability to push the belgian and french frontiers further west for the same reason as they took alsace in the first place
AH was viewed as ramshackle and would not withstand a major war. Conrad and Co wanted one for domestic reasons. The Kaiser wanted no part of the war, but his ministers and ambassadors worked around him to encourage, rather than discourage AH. He always chose peace, which exasperated the war hawks in the military and administration.*
so you understand exactly why they wanted to fight?
On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented "But that eliminates any reason for war" [Fischer, Fritz (1967). Germany's Aims in the First World War. P 71] or "every cause for war falls to the ground" [Fromkin, David (2004). Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914, P 218].

Wilhelm's sudden change of mind about war enraged Bethmann Hollweg, the military, and the diplomatic service, who proceeded to sabotage Wilhelm's offer.[Fisher, P 72] A German general wrote: "unfortunately... peaceful news. The Kaiser wants peace... He even wants to influence Austria and to stop continuing further."[Fromkin, P 219] Bethmann Hollweg sabotaged Wilhelm's proposal by instructing Tschirschky not to restrain Austria-Hungary. [You must most carefully avoid giving any impression that we want to hold Austria back. We are concerned only to find a modus to enable the realization of Austria-Hungary’s aim without at the same time unleashing a world war, and should this after all prove unavoidable, to improve as far as possible the conditions under which it is to be waged., Fischer, p. 72] In passing on Wilhelm's message, Bethmann Hollweg excluded the parts wherein the Emperor told the Austro-Hungarians not to go to war. [Fromkin, p. 219.] Jagow told his diplomats to disregard Wilhelm's peace offer, and continue to press for war. General Falkenhayn told Wilhelm he "no longer had control of the affair in his own hands". Falkenhayn went on to imply that the military would stage a coup d'état, and depose Wilhelm in favour of his son the hawkish Crown Prince Wilhelm, if he continued to work for peace. [Fromkin, p. 219.]

Bethmann Hollweg mentioned two favourable conditions for war in his telegram to Vienna: that Russia be made to appear the aggressor forcing a reluctant Germany into war, and that Britain be kept neutral.[Fischer, p. 72.] The necessity of making Russia appear the aggressor was the greater concern to Bethmann Hollweg because the German Social Democratic Party had denounced Austria-Hungary for declaring war on Serbia and ordered street demonstrations to protest Germany's actions in supporting Austria-Hungary. [Fromkin, p. 221.]

If one accepts the case that Germany saw an inevitable war now, with AH as an ally, as a better chance to survive than waiting until later to get swamped, its a defensive measure. They saw a future war as hopeless; AH was seen as unlikely to survive the Passing of Franz Joseph, once Franz Ferdinand died, and due to the increasing size and reforms of the Russian Army and improvements in its Railroads (thanks to French money).
you mean an alliance only possible because germany made the treaty of Frankfurt about as harsh as they could for a 6-month fight and then backed AH over russia? I'm not exactly sympathetic in that case.
France could field 95 divisions in 17 days, including 85 infantry divisions (46 regular, 2 Colonial, 25 reserve and 12 territorial) and 10 Cavalry divisions.
Russia could field 150 divisions in 3 months, including 114 infantry divisions and 36 cavalry divisions.
Germany fields 106 divisions in 16 days, 95 Infantry divisions (51 regular, 32 reserve, 6 Ersatz, 5 Landwehr, 1 Marine) and 11 cavalry divisions.
UK fields 7 divisions, 6 infantry divisions and 1 cavalry division.
AH fields 63 divisions in 17+ days, 52 infantry divisions (34 regular, 8 Honved, 8 Landwehr, 2 Landstrum) 11 cavalry divisions (9 regular, 2 Honved)
Serbia 10 Infantry 1 Cavalry Division

Central Powers = 169 Divisions, 147 Infantry, 22 Cavalry
Entente = 273 Divisions, 225 Infantry, 48 Cavalry
German foreign policy and its aggressions against all three are why the entente was a problem anyway.
  • france- Frankfurt
  • britain- arms race
  • russia- backing AH in the Balkans, polish question
Germany had no real goals on the continent and wanted no more Catholic lands (Austria-Hungary, Poland, Czecks, Sudetenland, Slovaks, Poles all Catholic). Thats one reason they failed to assimilate A/L, along with no local self-rule and the affair where garrison officers killed locals. Germany would have done better to emulate how the French handled resistance in Nice/Savoy.
 
My point is that the territorial concessions against the German Empire were not harsh in a pragmatic sense, only a nationalist one, and as a result, Germany's industrial capacity would be able to launch a war of reconquest. like it did.
If we limit ourselves to just the territorial concessions (in German national territory), then you may have a valid point, unfortunately France went far beyond that, what with the wholesale confiscation of all the German overseas Empire, and most infuriating of all, trying to dictate terms regarding internal German laws, and dictating German military disarmament, leaving their military a shadow of their pre-war self. All of this, and more besides, is what France did, and all of that is why the Nazi's were able to play upon the (righteous) rage of the German people at what had been done to them.
so no one is allowed to gain from their defeated enemy? you've already said the territory was too harsh in Europe.
Not sure about this one, reparations are one thing, taking a bite out of another nation's people, rather than their overseas colonies, or liberating conquered nations from their conquerors is something else. So, yes, we can go back and forth about the people that that lived in A/L when the French annexed them in (drat, all my google searches only go back to the 1870-1871 war with nothing before that --- not going to all that trouble right now --- to be revisited later), not sure, but France took the place from someone else at some point, and the folks who ruled the region then were not the folks that lived there, nor were those folk French. Already looked at a modern map, and not of the folks that were freed from the Russian Empire back then, are a part of Russia today, so that really should put paid to claims that B/L was harsh to Russia, rather than to her empire.
the thing is, i don't think you can make a 'just and fair peace.' because the attempts to do so have all failed; the concert of Europe lasted ~20 years before the crimean war brought russia and britain to war. the war of the Spanish succession and then the Austrian were the first treaties where all parties were primarily concerned with the balance of power and fairness to the states involved, and wars kept coming.
Such is afterall, human nature, that no peace is going to "end all wars", but why setup a situation that makes the second largest industrialized nation in the world mad and bent on revenge, just so the 4th most powerful industrialized nation can feel good about themselves, until the next war that will inevitably reverse this situation? France and Germany have to learn to live side by side, and any artificial structure that is contrived to put the smaller and weaker nation on top will eventually fail, just as the colonial empires themselves failed not to long after WWII.
the goal of a peace like that should be pragmatic- make it so the defeated power can't come back. which germany understood perfectly well when they were the ones dictating terms, but, because they bought into their own rhetoric, they couldn't accept the most generous defeat in a war that thier allies started and that they'd done the legwork on.

regardless of the ethics involved, i personally think it would be quite karmic, i genuinely fail to see how this would humiliate germany less. i can already hear the spin doctors claiming 'france attacked germany and made us pay for the cleanup and their new toys'
I cannot understand this, are you saying that having to rebuild war torn areas of Belgium and France, including (paying for the) building of fortifications of these borders is somehow more humiliating than what was historically done? Please explain this in context:
Loosing their entire empire.
Having their military stripped away.
Loosing their great power status.
I mean, if Germany had actually taken it in stride in the first place this would be moot. especially since they could've simply not driven themselves into hyperinflation or spent the entire 1920s trying to get out of financial obligation.
Well, this bolded part pretty clearly spells out your thinking process. You honestly believe that Germany should just accept everything that was done to her post WWI, and that France should be allowed to do this and pay no price for it? Such thinking is what made our history what it was, I wonder what the rest of the world's population thinks of this? We could start by asking folks from all the modern nations what they think of French thinking on this matter, it might just shed some light, and open up people's eyes. Just saying.
france also has more of a need for a strong navy, since it's actually keeping its overseas empire. the armament limitations were however somewhat ridiculous (i read somewhere it was less than Belgium's, which i think we can both agree is a little harsh.)
France needs = sounds like more of that French thinning.

At least, we finally come to some common ground, the disarmament of Germany was "a little harsh", is how you put this?!?! It was, in fact, an outrage! And only one of many.

Anyway, nothing the two of us type into this forums threads is going to undo what the French got away with post WWI, and what that nonsense let to in WWII, so there is that anyway.
okay i think i see the problem. you're thinking of Germany as a victimized nation, and I'm seeing it as an aggressive empire.
Indeed, and I think that you are correct, we do indeed see things differently.
germany was a nation, yes, but it's imperial dreams
Were not really any different than those of either Britain or France, themselves, but the Germans came to the game of empire in 1871, and by that time there was precocious little in the way of less advanced peoples to ruthlessly conquer and bully into dancing to German tunes, like the British and French had been doing for 100's of years, and so the Germans started to bully France, and taking little bits and pieces from their empire (just like, but on a way smaller scale the the British had done, time and time again), and the British, seeing the beginnings of someone else taking another empires overseas colonies, and realizing they they would inevitably loose their own empire to the Germans if something wasn't done to halt this trend...
and the fact it led a revisionist bloc against the entente-based status quo (italy wanted the med and balkans, AH to oust the russians, Germany against France and britain) are what are informing my perspective. As a result, what you see as crimes against a people, I'm viewing as 'a defeated power getting off very generously considering the scale of the conflict.'
I won't reply to this, other than to say that I won't. Not because it is beneath me or some such drivel, but because I have no idea what all this is? Not understanding it, I cannot really make any meaningful comment on it.
German lands that remembered being a separate country?

and bare in mind, Germany got that upset at losing any land. including:
  • the heavily mixed polish corridor (more justified than not given there were significant pro-unity germans there and it cut off prussia. However, it was also necessary for the economic independence of Poland)
  • the danish parts of Schleswig-Holstein
  • Alsace-Lorraine, which had taken from France a mere 40 years prior and which detested the German Empire (and wasn't popular in it either)
So, in my opinion, if germany's going to throw a hissy fit and start another war over an inch of land lost anyway, then the goal should be preventing it from thinking it could get away with it. and that means it has to lose some of silesia, or the rhine, or whatever, and bring it down to parity with the rest of Europe. The German nation and people deserve self-determination. but the german empire which borderline started the whole mess and was basically 80% of the central powers, is an aggressive force that needs to be contained.
I think, reading the above, that I really do need to go ahead and start writing my "Consequences and Repercussions" thread, just to expose another line of thought, where the British and French empires are shown in a more honest light, and are made to fall earlier than historically, and not in a long and drawn out series of independence wars lasting decades, but where decolonization is enforced when their own nations are conquered and occupied, their own armed forces are crushed and dismantled forever afterwards, and they are made to be seen as the evil doers. I fear that only such a fictional timeline is going to finally end the myth that the British and French empires were a good thing, while the German empire was a bad thing.

All of the colonial empires were a bad thing, and thank god they are all dust in the wind today.
wilson was a massive part of the negotiations. however, he lost the midterms and thus was not able to get it through congress.
And in truth, the USA didn't join the LoN, nor sign and ratify the historical treaties imposed upon Germany post WWI. This was a good thing, but not as good as getting a just and lasting piece would have been.
 
not once did i say that france and britain weren't aggressive empires? but in the context of a peace deal focused on and in europe, in a European war, Germany and her alliance were the aggressive party? i genuinely don't see the contradiction
Russia Invaded Germany to start the war in the East.

France played games and wanted Germany to cross the border first. Then Plan 17 kicked in and almost cost them the war.
France had been itching for a rematch since 1870, thats one of the main reasons they were out empire building, to get stronger. Their Russian Alliance had one purpose, an attack on Germany. Just go through the War plans of Russia and France. Russian Plan 19 and French Plans 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16(2) and 16(3) and 17 were offensive plans. Plans 1 through 7, 14 and 15 were defensive.
1280px-Plan_XVII.svg.png

"Il est prévu de passer à l'offensive dès que les corps d'active sont déployés, conformément aux règlements qui viennent d'être mis en vigueur, tel que le Règlement sur la conduite des grandes unités d'octobre 1913 et le Règlement sur le service des armées en campagne de décembre 1913, ainsi qu'aux engagements pris par la France envers la Russie, les deux nations devant lancer des offensives simultanées à partir du 15e jour de leur mobilisation"

"It was planned for the French Army to go on the offensive as soon as the active corps were deployed, in accordance with the regulations that had just been put into force, such as the Regulations on the Conduct of Large Units of October 1913 and the Army Service in the Field Regulations of December 1913, as well as France's commitments to Russia, with both nations to launch simultaneous offensives from the 15th day of their mobilization"
okay all other points aside you do realize it's a tad unfair to go all the way back through all of the 19th century for the other two and then not even include the north german confederation and prussia's wars right? it genuinely wouldn't even add that much but this framing makes it look like Germany just appeared one day pre-1870 and the prussian government never did anything wrong before unification.
I pulled those from a site. Earlier I called for breaking up Prussia into 4 or 5 States.
yes, this also describes french colonies. but again, germany's aggression was in europe, so that's where I'm focusing the discussion. and to act as though Germany is an immutable concept wherein them losing any land is a crime against god and nature is rediculous.
They entered one war to support their only ally. France was involved in wars in Europe before and after 1870. You paint it as if Germany was running around invading countries in Europe. They fought three wars to create the German Empire, one with Denmark, one vs Austria and one vs France. The Kaiser made two big mistakes, appointing Moltke and listening to him when the Kaiser decided to stop the invasion of Luxemburg and Belgium. Moltke didn't think his plan would work but pushed it anyways. He lied to the Kaiser about plans to reinforce the East and stand on the defensive in the West, saying the army had no plans for this, which was not true.
blockades have always been accepted in the rules of warfare with only occasional diplomatic challenges. and what does this even have to do with my statement of him being part of the negotiations?
So submarine blockades are cool? You allies broke the cruiser rules to try to get neutral ships torpedoed without warning.
he wasn't the only one in government. most of the reichstaag was itching for a fight.
The Social democrats wanted no part of the war, some reactionaries in Germany and A/H hoped to defuse their political strength. Similar thought and movements were in France and Russia. At the end of the war they took power and purged a lot of the prowar figures.

In France Jean Jaurès was assassinated, by Raoul Villain (what a name), a likely tool of either British or French intelligence. He was acquitted by a jury of peers on March 29, 1919, and Anatole France wrote in L'Humanité: "Workers! ... A monstrous verdict proclaims that the assassination of Jaurès is not a crime...".Jaurès's wife, as plaintiff, was ordered to pay the court costs.
330px-Jean_Jaur%C3%A8s%2C_1904%2C_by_Nadar.jpg
800px-Villain%2C_Raoul_%28Les_Hommes_du_Jour_1915-12-18%29.jpg

  1. a greater sphere of interest in eastern europe
  2. a cut down to size russia
  3. colonies all over the world
  4. greater Poland if they wanted it
  5. the ability to push the belgian and french frontiers further west for the same reason as they took alsace in the first place
They took Alsace for the Iron, mountains against the advice of Bismark.
so you understand exactly why they wanted to fight?

you mean an alliance only possible because germany made the treaty of Frankfurt about as harsh as they could for a 6-month fight and then backed AH over russia? I'm not exactly sympathetic in that case.
Frankfort was no biggie, France recovered in a decade. They then spend the next 34 years planning revenge. Germany unintentionally left France with major iron fields just outside of A/L.
German foreign policy and its aggressions against all three are why the entente was a problem anyway.
  • france- Frankfurt
  • britain- arms race
  • russia- backing AH in the Balkans, polish question
Germany had given up on the Naval Arms race by 1910-12, it was a luxury the Reichstag decided they could no longer afford. They had strict limits on spending and on the size of the armed forces. To fund an army increase, the navy budget was frozen and money was moved from building ships to operations.

Russia freeing Poland ... Not even this bank robber believes that.
1024px-Stalin%27s_Mug_Shot.jpg

59c910f285600a17cb7bcdb5.jpg
 
Last edited:
The treaty of Frankfurt was an attempt at crippling France with reparations. The Germans expected them to take decades for France to truly repay, allowing the Germans to keep occupying North France and make the French pay the occupation as long as possible.
That the French repaid in three years almost caused Germany to have another go at it in 1873.
In addition, the Briey-Longwy iron fields were unknown at the time of the treaty, otherwise it is most certain that Germany would've taken them as well. The goal of Frankfurt was twofold: A/L as a buffer/defensible military frontier and crippling France.
 
...
Frankly WW2 is 99% France and GB fault (well the European part). They didn't want uo put in the effort a harsh treaty needed yet they wanted a harsh treaty then they act surprised when Germany takes advantage if that and uses the teaty against them…

...
So you think that Germany has no reasonability for it's own actions?


also The Nazis didn't hate the ToV because they thought it was unfair they hated because they thought the wrong side was dictating the terms because they thought the wrong side won the war!

I do agree the ToV was failed by a lack of commitment to it, but that's not the fault of the ToV, and it still doesn't remove German responability for it's own action afterwards either.

And your claim is kind of weird it was France and the UK's fault that they didn't permanently treat Germany like a rabid dog that can only understand force and must be kept in a cage?


At the very least, from the perception of France, Britain, and America, Germany is the aggressor as far as they personally are concerned :
- France through the German ultimatum
- Britain through the invasion of Belgium
- America through the Zimmerman Telegram.
So three of the Big Five (including Japan and Italy) have reasons to feel that they have been targets of German aggression...
That is of course not necessarily accurate globally. But it's not like the "war guilt" clause was exclusive to Germany, it's reproduced in Saint-Germain and Trianon, and is present in a modified way in Sèvres and Neuilly.

As for the armistice terms... They were conceived so that Germany would not be able to fight back if fighting resumed. They were in all but name an unconditional surrender.
Yes pretty much, you could argue that maybe for better long term result the invasion of Germany should have happened in 1919, but that would have involved a lot more death and destruction and left Germany not only in a worse position but likely with a harsher treaty imposed on them by the end due to all the extra bloodshed and destruction the entente would have suffered

And that's the true irony of the "Oh the ToV was so unfair argument". the ToV was the entente giving Germany a way out with teh extra blood and cost.

And there's a reason what even before it looked like the red army would burn Berlin down, it was always going to unconditional surrender because no one is going to make the same mistake again, and why in May 1945 there is zero confusion as to weather Germany truly lost this time.
 
Last edited:
I had heard the statement that the peace imposed on Germany, while not particularly harsh in absolute terms (just look at what they did to my boy, Hungary), was too harsh for the military situation on the ground to fully justify while the Entente also wasn't fully committed to using force, by marching all the way to Berlin, to impose it should the Germans refuse to surrender under those terms (since they wanted the war over just as badly as the Germans).

If the goal of the peace was to break Germany then it sure as hell didn't go far enough. If you're going to break Germany you need to dismantle the state entirely, anything else is nothing more than a half-measure and eventually Germany will recover and be right pissed at its treatment. However, in order to do so you'd need to effectively march on Berlin, which I doubt was in the cards in 1919.

The best peace I could come up with is Germany still loses at least most of the lands it did historically (with the potential exception being the lands lost to Denmark since they weren't a co-belligerent in the war). While getting rid of reparations and disarmament (Germany is far less likely to attempt another war anytime soon, at least for a generation and it's not like the German Navy was every going to realistically threaten the Royal Navy).

Basically, aside from the territorial losses, it's basically a Peace With Honor.
 
Top