Why so much sympathies for Central Powers?

[trekchu]

Finally I think that many who feel sympathy for the CP feel the same about the Nazis but are worried about the reaction they would get so they talk about WW1.

They will also wax lyrical about German technology, training and weaponry and then try to blame people like Jewish bankers, British Imperialists and Serbs for spoiling their party.

So of course the Germans were always pre-destined to become the Nazis just because they are Germans? 4th Reich probably too?#

Basically I am a Nazi sympathiser for trying to theorize on how the Nazis and all that came with it could have been prevented?

 

[Devolved]

So of course the Germans were always pre-destined to become the Nazis just because they are Germans? 4th Reich probably too?

I guess you didn't read the words on the screen. I said nothing about the Germans as a people and I don't see the word pre-destined used either.

I guess you see what you want to see.

 

[Sicarius]

This love for the Central Powers and how the world would have been a better place is fanciful thinking. I can't imagine it being any better than how things turned out, and to say Germany would have stomped out Communism or never given rise to fascism is idealistic, not to mention it ignores that a ton of other problems were already revealed by World War I to show that some sort of revolutionary reaction was going to occur against the order. If anything, Germany could have very well swept the issues under the rug once they won...

Yeah, it's not like fascism and stalinism invented the ideas of tyranny, death camps, and genocide. Those all cropped up long before and well after those ideologies' days in the sun.

 

[Dangimill]

Question: What's with all the Triple Entente-philia? Seriously, the Americans really screwed up a war that had little to do with them.

 

[Sift Green]

Finally I think that many who feel sympathy for the CP feel the same about the Nazis but are worried about the reaction they would get so they talk about WW1.

Sympathy for the German Empire is a completely different set of emotions then sympathy for the Nazis. If the Germans win WWI it is next to impossible for something like the Nazis to come to power in Germany. A German victory in WWI also makes a second war very difficult to start, as the German leadership would not have backed down on the enforcement of any peace treaty, unlike the leadership of the British and French.

They will also wax lyrical about German technology, training and weaponry and then try to blame people like Jewish bankers, British Imperialists and Serbs for spoiling their party.

Examples please.
On this site. Because the OP is asking about Central Power Nostalgia on this form.

 

[I Blame Communism]

1) The preference for reversing outcomes, plus attraction to the big dramatic wars, skews the stats.

2) Of the big dramatic wars where people like to reverse outcomes, WW1 was a lot more grey-and-grey than WW2 or the ACW.

3) We like Germany and Britain, we don't like France or Russia. The reasons for these phenomena are worth a thread themselves, but whereas sometimes Britain gets badly mauled, more often we lose without, you know, losing.

4) The idea - mistaken, in my opinion, which is that most PoDs can lead to a world which is better or worse or just different; I also feel that people are very quick to forgive the CP their faults - that the horrors of the 20th century will all be avoided.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

Maybe this is just my feeling...but it seems that some, if not the majority, of the members are somewhat either apologetic or having good opinions toward the Central Powers (Imperial Germany, Hapsburgs or Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire).

I can think of two main reasons:
1. They were far better than their future counterparts (the Nazis, messed up Balkans, messed up Middle East)
2. They were surprisingly "cool" in WWI, able to hold out the (relatively) superior Entente for four years

Any other reasons for this CP-philia?

Edit: Should be moved to Chat forum, maybe...

I can at least feel sorry for the Austrians and the Germans; the former permanently disbanded, and the other country ended up going thru a horrible depression about half a decade before anyone else did.
The Ottoman Empire, however, is a different story; 1-2 million Armenians murdered by the government basically kinda made Ankara out to be the Nazis of the First World War.

 

[Devolved]

Sympathy for the German Empire is a completely different set of emotions then sympathy for the Nazis. A German victory in WWI also makes a second war very difficult to start, as the German leadership would not have backed down on the enforcement of any peace treaty, unlike the leadership of the British and French.

Logically it should be different but in reality the road OFTEN (not always) seems to lead to that destination IMO.

You then say WW2 couldn't happen because the Germans would have enforced their treaty more than the British and French.

In other words you are saying that Germans are more ruthless. Maybe that was why the Entente was right to fight them and that the millions who died to stop German militarism hadn't died in vain. That is the difference.

It also explains why the mentality that has sympathy for the Second Reich is not radically different from the Third Reich which consisted of men who had fought in the Kaisers army!!

 

[I Blame Communism]

The Ottoman Empire, however, is a different story; 1-2 million Armenians murdered by the government basically kinda made Ankara out to be the Nazis of the First World War.

Nobody's denying that there was ethnic cleansing and mass state murder going on, but the Armenians and Azeris were soon enough doing it to one-another, with the Armenians giving more than they got. Once you realise that a quarter of Serbians died during the occupation; that there was a demographic disaster in Kazakhstan under the tsars mid-war; that the African colonial empires of both sides had gotten up to it plenty, Germany not least; and of course that there had been ethnic cleansings of Muslims in the Balkans for some decades, you realise that the Ottomans were hardly out of the ordinary.

Horrrible as everybody was capable of being, nobody was the Nazis.

And Ankara wasn't the capital.

 

[I Blame Communism]

It also explains why the mentality that has sympathy for the Second Reich is not radically different from the Third Reich which consisted of men who had fought in the Kaisers army!!

As opposed to fit German males of working age who hadn't fought in the kaiser's army? Most of the Red Army's top men of WW2 had of course fought in WW1 for the tsar, so clearly they were the same thing, I suppose.

 

[Devolved]

As opposed to fit German males of working age who hadn't fought in the kaiser's army? Most of the Red Army's top men of WW2 had of course fought in WW1 for the tsar, so clearly they were the same thing, I suppose.

I pointed out that the Nazi leadership was mostly made up of men who had fought in the Kaisers army.

I am always astonished at how people on this site read things that aren't there.

 

[Sift Green]

Logically it should be different but in reality the road OFTEN (not always) seems to lead to that destination IMO.

I would still like examples.

You then say WW2 couldn't happen because the Germans would have enforced their treaty more than the British and French.

In other words you are saying that Germans are more ruthless. Maybe that was why the Entente was right to fight them and that the millions who died to stop German militarism hadn't died in vain. That is the difference.

The difference is government structure and internal politics. The reason the British and French let the Germans rearm was because the governments that had made the treaty had been replaced by governments that were to pacifistic to enforce said treaty. In other words their weren't enough people from the older governments to make the reasoning behind enforcement clear. With the German style of government enough people from the older leaders parities will have retained power to maintain enforcement, no matter how pacifistic new political figurers are.

It also explains why the mentality that has sympathy for the Second Reich is not radically different from the Third Reich which consisted of men who had fought in the Kaisers army!!

And the people who lead the Third Reich would never have obtained power in the Kaisers country. And what about all those normal people who served in the Kaisers army that wanted to nothing to do with the Nazis?

 

[I Blame Communism]

I pointed out that the Nazi leadership was mostly made up of men who had fought in the Kaisers army.

I am always astonished at how people on this site read things that aren't there.

I read that "the Second Reich is [was?] not radically different from the Third Reich". I also read a pair of exclamation marks (a form of punctuation normally used to indicate mania), which made me assume quite naturally that the fact of the Third Reich's political and leadership having fought for Germany in WW1 was enormously significant.

As it turns out, a lot of people of many political persuasions were in the army, owing to this thing "universal male conscription".

 

[LordIreland]

I think that things are not going so well in OTL at the moment. So, its only natural that board/bored members will seek a slightly more utopian 21st century through ATL events.

Personally, I believe that a victorious Germany could have/would have made similar mistakes to the entente and the world today would still be in pretty much the same shape. Its all shades of grey in the end

 

[Devolved]

And what about all those normal people who served in the Kaisers army that wanted to nothing to do with the Nazis?

What about them? What did they actually do?

As for the Russian argument then I guess the argument still holds. Tsarist Russia was oppressive too and so serving the Reds wouldn't have been the big jump you'd think. You are still killing and arresting people who don't agree with the government, including family and friends.

As for examples you can see the threads. Choose any week and you will see. Today you will see one about Luftwaffe jets. Another week it will be tanks, then it will be U boats.

As for WW1 people like you will say that WW2 would have been avoided because if the Germans had won WW1 they would have enforced the peace.

That's great!! You have peace in the school playground if everyone gives in to the bully. If anyone fights back then you blame the victim. If the victim shows mercy when he beats the bully then the vicitm is an idiot and any trouble afterwards is the vicitims fault.

That sounds like N**i thinking to me.

As I said the road takes you to the same destination.

 

[I Blame Communism]

As for the Russian argument then I guess the argument still holds. Tsarist Russia was oppressive too and so serving the Reds wouldn't have been the big jump you'd think. You are still killing and arresting people who don't agree with the government, including family and friends.

You're missing the point. As a matter of fact, there was much less continuity in the Russian case, most of the top Red Army men having been junior officers, often from peasant backgrounds (and quite a few weren't in the army before the war, meaning that they spent their tsarist service shooting, you know, Germans; anyway, are we going to claim that every peasant soldier who has been induced to shoot at workers is on par with Stalin or Hitler? That's a lot of budding dictators since 1800...). The point is that most of them didn't have any choice about service in the Tsarist army.

It would be difficult to find a German politician of Hitler's age who had lived in Germany during the war and not served in the kaiser's army, because everybody had to serve in the kaiser's army for two years and more in reserve barring various special cases. Is this hard?

 

[Devolved]

I read that "the Second Reich is [was?] not radically different from the Third Reich". I also read a pair of exclamation marks (a form of punctuation normally used to indicate mania), which made me assume quite naturally that the fact of the Third Reich's political and leadership having fought for Germany in WW1 was enormously significant.

As it turns out, a lot of people of many political persuasions were in the army, owing to this thing "universal male conscription".

In think you have mistaken mania for exasperation. When people comment on things you haven't said it is quite annoying.

The fact that many of the Nazi leadership served in the army is significant IMO.

BTW Hitler was an Austrian and he volunteered!!!!! (sorry for the mania)

 

[Fletch]

I have no sympathy for the Central Powsers whatsoever. In fact their policies(I am of the vp taken from a British perspective the Germans were fully at fault for WW1 by the invasion of Belgium) were a direct cause of the Nazis, Soviets and all the nastiness that went on in europe over the past century.

The only mistake made was an armistice being agreed. The Entente should have driven to Berlin and forced the Germans to sign the surrender documents in the Reichstag.

 

[I Blame Communism]

The fact that many of the Nazi leadership served in the army is significant IMO.

Why? Every fit military-age male did, including, say, Ernst Thaelmann. He was dismissed early for agitation, of course, but the point is that he was conscripted, same as every other young German male.

BTW Hitler was an Austrian and he volunteered!!!!! (sorry for the mania)

As opposed to, ah, serving as a conscript in the Austrian army?

I have no sympathy for the Central Powsers whatsoever. In fact their policies(I am of the vp taken from a British perspective the Germans were fully at fault for WW1 by the invasion of Belgium) were a direct cause of the Nazis, Soviets and all the nastiness that went on in europe over the past century.

The direct cause of the Nazi regime was Hitler being appointed chancellor. The direct cause of the Soviet regime was Lenin deciding to launch a violent seizure of power. Whereas there is a point some way before either event after which it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid. There are plenty of ways these things could have been averted after 1914.

 

[EmmettMcFly55]

You then say WW2 couldn't happen because the Germans would have enforced their treaty more than the British and French.

In other words you are saying that Germans are more ruthless.

Not to interfere with your argument with I Blame Communism, but that line about people on this site reading things that aren't there should apply to you as well.

The Germans would have bigger chances at preventing a WWII or at least winning a short version because they would be in a much better position, not because they are cruel ruthless tyrants.

At the end of a CP-victorious First World War, Germany would have had total control over Mitteleuropa. It is hard to say because there are different versions of the war possible, but let's just say that there was a late victory in the war (no US intervention) and that A-H and the Ottomans survive, because this thread is about the Central Powers, not just Germany. Therefore, at the end of WWI, the Central Powers would control Poland, the Baltics and the Ukraine plus the Balkans and a sizeable colonial empire in Africa. Their opponents would be the USSR and a revanchist France and Italy. Britain might or might not go radical, but it would at least favor the revanchist sentiments.

Compare this to the situation France and Britain were in after OTL WWI. They had the USSR against them as a communist threat, plus they had a rearming Germany and a potentially backstabbing Italy to worry about. Also, Britain and France had democratic governments which were wary of war.

Germany and the Central Powers, on the other hand, would have pursued some reforms, but the German Reich was unlikely to be wary of war as long as it was for a just cause. When France would start violating the Treaty of Versailles Germany would be able to intervene because while the Soviet Union was a threat to them, it was not nearly as big as a threat as it was to France and Britain who stood alone. Germany ITTL would never have been forced to go through limitations on her army and all that happened after WWI. Instead, France starts from a weakened position. Therefore, this Germany is certainly capable of fighting France, Italy, Britain and Russia at once, and winning like they did in WWI. Compare this to the Entente position at the eve of WWII: America had withdrawn into isolationism and Russia was also neutral. Germany had been relatively weak at first, but reluctance because of the wish to have an anti-Soviet buffer state had prevented them from seizing that moment. Germany would have none of that reluctance.

And even if it got to war, France could possible overrun the Low Countries, but German strength and numbers would still be able to stop them. The Soviets would likely have to conquer much more in the east than IOTL, since thanks to stronger Germany, the Ukraine would still be intact. The Russians might reach the Vistula in their initial assault, but that would be about it. As for Italy, they would be going up against an enemy they can only fight in mountains. They could never take advantage of surprise on a scale like France and Russia could. The Italians would get bogged down.

And of course, this is only if France and Italy are willing to side with the Soviet Union at all. If they swing to the right, it would take a lot of realpolitik to get them to ally with the communist Soviet Union. And France and Russia need each other to defeat Germany. Alone and each in a weaker position than IOTL, they stand little of a chance.