World War I

Would everyone have been happier in the long run had Germany won the first world war? I mean, it would have put a stop to British, Russian and French imperialism and America could have maintained it's stance as an isolationist.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qq8A_8gUc3Y
youtu.be/Rzjxy1rrkng
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chamberlain
youtu.be/Ly94C-rdPIg
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekundant
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It would have prevented WW2, so yes. The world would be better.

Hey Germanbro, mind if I ask how your country remembers the Kaiser? I know he bungled the war, but he did oversee a lot of industrial progress for the nation.

>it would have put a stop to British, Russian and French imperialism
....so, other families and their attached nations would have continued their own imperialism regardless. So what's the difference?
(see video for details)

youtube.com/watch?v=qq8A_8gUc3Y

Mostly they teach us that he was a lunatic who ruined all accomplishments of Bismarck.

I guess, but at least America had a chance at not having to play the World hero.
Sad, I would blame Austria more so for what transpired.

Well he isolated the Kaiserreich before WW1 because he was so agressive in his foreign policy.

Not Germany... it was Austria

>88

True, but I thought he still tried to maintain what Bismarck had laid out?

WW1 was a mistake. It is the pivotal event in the downfall of the west. Wilhelm was a fucking moron and is as responsible as the jews for how things are today.

It was not possible for them to win. I don't mean like WW2 where it was an uphill batttle with hitler making stupid command decisions, Germany was fucked soon as the schlieffen plan failed
>Germany thinks a fuck huge war is coming and doesn't want to be attack on 3 sides
>a plan to Zerg rush and take France in a matter of weeks or less so Germany can be ready in case of a fuck huge war
>what is a self fufilling prophecy
>>Germany Zerg rushes France, but the French hold the line
>Germany is surrounded on 3 sides and BTFO

But we killed the russian empire very fast and the brits and frogs were losing slowly but still losing.... it was only the usa with millions of fresh soldiers ready for the war who got us finished

“aggressive“ yeah compared to bismarck

Pegged an enormous surface fleet to the RN then feigned shock when it got the reaction they wanted in the first place. Invaded a neutral country to avoid facing the frogs like men and then acted surprised when a third party honoured their treaty obligations. No sympathy.

>and America could have maintained it's stance as an isolationist.
Hate to be that guy, but America wouldn't have sperged out if Germany just decided not to send out the Zimmerman telegram.
I still think the Zimmerman telegram was one of the dumbest and most suicidal diplomatic moves in human history.

>muh boats
>muh waves
fug off

First of all, the threat to the RN was the sole intent of German foreign policy, so I'm not certain how it's our fault for rising to what they wanted to begin with. Second, living in an irrelevant landlocked belt of hills smaller than South Carolina I imagine it's quite difficult for you to understand the existential threat a surface navy from an actual serious power poses. Fortunately (or unfortunately as you may see it) the Germans understood it very well.

YES BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THE GERMANS TO SEND LENIN BACK TO RUSSIA WHO THEN STARTED THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION.

HENCE NO COMMUNISTS... EVER!

i know british are very autistic over this subject but you just dont own the concept of boats, other people "ruining" your favorite boat building hobby is not a provocation.

I don't know. I mean the Kaiser was holding us back. After we dealt with a short commie uprising just after WW1, Germany soared in the 1920s. It pretty much went up and up until it was stopped by the Great Depression in 1929.

Germany couldn't have "won" the war. From the beginning, our main objective was to maintain the status quo, which was the reason why the advance into france wasn't pressed and why there were peace offerings to the allies whenever we had a clear advantage. If the french weren't such imperialists, the war woul've ended on agreeable terms in december '16. The reason the french give to this very day for refusing peace was that there was no guarantee the "small nations" like the poles would get sovereign states - even though they themselves surpressed people all around the globewhile germany had already promised the poles sovereignity.

Pretty badly. In school we're taught that he was an absolutistic lunatic who started the war pretty much by himself (which is bullshit obviously, but they gotta indoctrinate the sheep i guess).

we are taught the kaiser was a bit jealous of his english relatives but wasnt really a war monger.

Instead he was talked into it by his cabinet and close military advisers who advocated and pushed for war.

Most of Europe would probably have been better off if WWI ended with a decisive Russian or German victory.

Filling the land between them with states too small to defend themselves while leaving Germany and Russia strong enough to pursue re-capture of lost territories was probably the worst case scenario.

if losing the war would prevent World War 2?

yes. no doubt about it.

If you can't read my posts properly, particularly the part where I said (twice now) that German foreign policy was intended specifically to get a reaction from the UK, then I don't see why you're bothering replying. Nothing to do with a "favorite boat building hobby" and everything to do with physical and political realities.
>"For Germany the most dangerous naval enemy at the present time is England. It is also the enemy against which we most urgenly require a certain measure of naval force as a political power factor [...] Our fleet must be so constructed that it can unfold its greatest military potential between Heligoland and the Thames."
—Von Tirpitz, 1897

Are you serious?

Before you decided to barge in on order of your Jewish overlords, we were clearly winning. But a murder of crows will always defeat an eagle.

>waaah mommy klaus is better at building boats than meee why is he so meeean
pretty pathetic desu

>that German foreign policy was intended specifically to get a reaction from the UK
You are either insane or mentally retarded. Check yourself.

>Germany couldn't have "won" the war.
Then why were we winning until the US went in? Quite clearly, too.

Alright.
This is grade school level history, as in the history taught to schoolchildren. If anyone is retarded, it isn't me, although you could say I'm more the fool for expecting anything serious from Sup Forums.

Nothing in your quote advocates provocation. They just recognize that as long as Britain has naval dominance in the North Sea they hold a powerful card over Germany. So of course they wanted a build a counter-fleet to prevent British blackmail.

You're just regurgitating typical British bullshit where Britain terrorized the world with gunboats and when someone built naval defenses it was immediately a "provocation".

No. William II was a dipshit and should've been executed

Franz Josef too but gladly he drowned from pneumonia before the war ended

>Germany couldn't have "won" the war. From the beginning, our main objective was to maintain the status quo,
delusions of lunacy, Germany started the war to break the status quo, and annex several territories from France, Belgium and Russia.
Annexationism is never a "status quo".

> which was the reason why the advance into france wasn't pressed
you live in a parallel universe or something like that. Do you know how the Schlieffenlan was called? Angriffskrieg gegen Frankeich.

>and why there were peace offerings to the allies
no such thing happened.

>If the french weren't such imperialists, the war woul've ended on agreeable terms in december '16.
The evil French didn't simply want to surrender Longwy-Briey...

>The reason the french give to this very day for refusing peace was that there was no guarantee the "small nations" like the poles would get sovereign states - even though they themselves surpressed people all around the globewhile germany had already promised the poles sovereignity.
So just because Germany, A-H and RUS occupied Poland means Germany may take parts of France and Belgium?

>Pretty badly. In school we're taught that he was an absolutistic lunatic who started the war pretty much by himself (which is bullshit obviously, but they gotta indoctrinate the sheep i guess).
Still you haven't thought through this indoctrination. The Kaiser wanted to call it off after he saw the Serbian reply, it was the liberlas and conservatives who pressed for war, those who today are the Merkelian Mitteleuropa EUists.

That's the ocean right in front of Germany.
If you think a nation having a navy strong enough to be a political factor in front of its own coast is somehow an act of aggression, then you're an absolute retard.

The British desire to rule the waves was the aggression. Needed to keep your empire, but you can't blame other nations for trying to weaken your chokehold.

>Then why were we winning until the US went in? Quite clearly, too.

The war was lost in late 1914 after the offensive in France failed.

schlieffen plan was not even relevant by that time. it was written for a war much earlier in time. Its mainly just a series of strange events that led to the german pull back. they had the french on the run for 10 days Joffre pulled troops from everywhere threw 2 new armies together and had one of his best generals forced to take over the army guarding paris, then the germans cut their turn a bit early to chase down what is a broken force and then the french have a strong army on the German flank then a gap between the 1 and 2 German armies opens up and the BEF finds itself pushing into a weakened German line you have to fall back to a stronger situation or lose everything

The kikes would also not have been given Palestine.

>The kikes would also not have been given Palestine.

How do you know? Wilhelm II was very pro-zionist and asked the Ottoman Sultan to give Jews a homeland, he had refused though.

Without American intervention, Germany'd have won. It was inevitable to for the European powers to consolidate, and Germany was their natural leader in terms of manpower, innovation, economic and military power. Unfortunately, things have changed drastically and there is no perspective for Europe as a global power anymore...

>Before you decided to barge in on order of your Jewish overlords, we were clearly winning. But a murder of crows will always defeat an eagle.

You lost with your strategy Hantz.
That's all. The burger said the true.

Blietzkrieg and massive invasion is great if you success really fast to win, what you did in WW2 for example.
After 1916, you just continued to fight in order to not let the French going until Berlin.

L2H faggot.

>Without American intervention, Germany'd have won.

Where did you find historical data related to this claim ?

you were not winning , the entente had only more casualities because you played deffensive; of course if the USA stayed out of the war , it would have lasted longer.

maybe if you guys didn't have chained yourselves to Austria Hungary and turkey who, were not the best friends to have in the war,

The RN was never a threat to Germany, at least not in the existential way the Imperial Navy was to Britain. The blockade during the war took almost four years to have any serious effect, whereas a similar blockade on Britain would've brought the country to its knees within six weeks, and the reason Germany was obsessed with the Bight is that it was the only physical route by which the RN could affect Germany at all in a hypothetical conflict. I don't even really need to point this out, though, because as I've said multiple times, German foreign policy was predicated solely on mounting against the UK. This is well-documented and attested to from German sources and German politicians (like Bethmann-Hollweg who had failed to counter von Tirpitz' intransigence). The only place I even have to argue about this is Sup Forums.

>You lost with your strategy Hantz.

it is rather a Hassan or Özgür you're talking to, every German knows Wilhelm II was down with the Jews, his advicers were called the "Kaiserjuden". (Albert Ballin, Eduard Arnhold, Carl Fürstenberg, Paul von Schwabach, Walther Rathenau...)

no one was winning, it was a stalemate,

The fact that late in the war the Reich was able to mount a succesful offensive on the Western Front even though a million American soldiers in addition to the UK and French army were stationed there already. A white peace in the west was all that was needed for Germany to de facto win.

>The RN was never a threat to Germany, at least not in the existential way the Imperial Navy was to Britain.

It stood in the way of German expansionism.

Kaiser Wilhelm II to Karl von Eisendecher, German vice-admiral and diplomat, Dec. 12, 1912

„England könne es nicht dulden, daß Deutschland die Vormacht des Kontinents werde und d[ies]er unter seiner Führung sich vereinige!! Skrupellos, roh und englisch! […] Es ist eine moralische Kriegserklärung an uns. Meine Instanzen sind alle informiert und militärisch gilt für die Vorbereitungen [zum großen Krieg] England jetzt als unser Feind. […] Damit ist Marschalls Arbeit und Lichnowskys Mission à limine bereits erledigt. Denn beider Auftrag war, die Neutralität Englands uns jedenfalls für den Konfliktfall mit Rußland-Frankreich zu sichern […]. [Als Gegenmaßnahmen verordnete der Kaiser zudem] mehr Schiffe und Soldaten […], denn es geht um unsere Existenz […]: Hier geht England kaltblütig im Kampfe der Germanen gegen die Slavische [sic!] Überflutung gegen ihre eigene Rasse! Militärisch ziehen wir bereits die Kosequenzen und machen uns auf alles gefaßt“
(PA3, Nachlass Eisendecher, Nr 1/1-7: Wilhelm II. an Eisendecher, 12.12.1912.)

RESTORE THE EMPIRE!

"England could not tolerate Germany becoming the continental hegemon and uniting it under its leadership! Ruthless, rough and English! [...] It is a moral declaration of war against us. My instances are all informed and militarily preparations taking effect [for the great war] England is now our enemy. [...] Therefor Marschall's work and Lichnowsky's mission already end on the threshold. Because both their order was to ensure England's neutrality in our favour at least in the case of conflict with Russia, France. [...] [As counter measure the Kaiser moreover enacts more ships and more soldiers [...], because its about our existence. In this fight of the Germanics against the Slavic flood, England coldbloodedly goes against its own race! Militarily we draw the conclusions already, and prepare for everything."

How did Germany "lose" the war if none of the entente even made it in German territory, and the war ended in a stalemate along the trenches in france?

Why was the blame for WW1 put solely in Germany's lap when you could easily blame Serbia, Austria, and Russia with "fault" before Germany?

Thx for translation amigo

>The fact that late in the war the Reich was able to mount a succesful offensive on the Western Front even though a million American soldiers in addition to the UK and French army were stationed there already. A white peace in the west was all that was needed for Germany to de facto win.

you really need to read about the basics. The 1918 offensives failed catastrophically, Unternehmen Michael, Schwarzer Tag des deutschen Heeres, ever heard?

Your pathetic alliance never got over the german border you niggers never had a real chance without the usa

>rule the oceans
>outnumber, outgun and outpower both the French and German navy combined
>and then some
>Germany doesn't want to be possible to be naval blockaded at the whim of the Brits anymore.

What a truly existential thread! A full naval blockade of the UK....a big island with harbors all over. You're an idiot.

Hitler would have never came into power if the Empire won

YOUR EMPIRE?

Hitler wouldn't have been needed if the Empire still existed.

>it was a stalemate

Maybe on the ground, but look at the big picture.

Germany was completely cucked on the sea and cut off from most international trade. She was slowly but surely being strangled to death, even before the US entered the war.

Number of factors even though the allies didn't occupy Germany:

The Allied blockade had been starving the country for years; these severe food shortages were aggravating major social unrest in German cities.

The Americans at the end had 10,000 fresh troops arriving in France every day. The advantage of men and material on the Allied side was seen as being completely overwhelming.

The Germans Operation Michael in Spring 1918 was basically their long shot to win. They hit all the lines and brought veterans over from the Eastern Front, but the Allies managed to hang on and the Germans had significant losses.

Defeat was seen as an inevitability.

Everybodyisalwaysbl amingmeforeverythingTrump.jpg

precisley
youtu.be/Rzjxy1rrkng

I remain convinced that Wilhelm II did not understand the gravity of his actions in pursuing an enormous and powerful German fleet. In the quote he is speaking from a point of alienation from England even though it came well after the fact of his own actions. Until its naval policy and the dismissal of Bismarck, Anglo-German relations had been very good in spite of deep ideological differences. With few exceptions, Germany was seen as an amicable counterbalance to France.
Britain is an island. Germany is capable and has always been capable of outsourcing its needs elsewhere in the event of a hostile naval blockade — this is not true for Britain, and this threat has always been something that lurks at the back of the minds of our foreign policy planners. I cannot understand how this is so difficult for people here to grasp. Germany was well aware of the threat its navy posed and they pushed Britain into the arms of the French by forcing the UK to pull ships from the Mediterranean to protect against the much more powerful Imperial Navy.

It would have been better for all parties if the war had never happened
>no ww1
>no ww2
>Europe would probably still be powerful and have empires

He was a lunatic, even if you think he was right you can't dispute that. Just read his fucking newspaper interview. Heck, even at the end of the war he thought he could get Germany into an alliance with the fucking English against the USA. The same people whose cities he had been bombing with zeppelins for years.

>I remain convinced that Wilhelm II did not understand the gravity of his actions

Dude was unfit for the job. Born and shamed as a cripple even by his own mother who spoke down of him as a weakly burden and put through humiliating and painful procedures in his youth to correct these issues (which did not work) he started to compensate his gnawing selfdoubts with a military fetish, playing around a lot of war themed games with soldier-actors dressed in historical gear, surrounded by an useless all male court that was tasked with entertainment and egostroking he went on vacations with. That and being overshadowed by Bismark probably pushed him into pursuing power projects only because he could.

Wilhelm's advicers very well knew what their policy was about, they did it on purpose. In the end the conservative Prussian Junkers made an end to this fleet policy, and returned back on focussion on having a strong land force.
Rejecting Britains friendship was an unforgivable idiocy

>The day after the departure of the Kaiser and von Bülow, on 30 November, Chamberlain grandiloquently spoke at Leicester of "a new Triple Alliance between the Teutonic race and the two great trans-Atlantic branches of the Anglo-Saxon race which would become a potent influence on the future of the world." Though the Kaiser was complimentary, Friedrich von Holstein described Chamberlain's speech as a "blunder" and the Times attacked Chamberlain for using the term "alliance" without inhibition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Chamberlain

...

Yeah, you would have won if it wern't for us

Ww2 was the greatest thing to happen to Europe THIS CENTURY. Die german inferior pigs theres a reason you're all murderous cowards ITS GENETIC

Fuck off fag.

Yes, Joseph's failure is one of my biggest regrets. He was a very competent politician and he could've done so much to save our country, which was tired and struggling by the turn of the century, and to prevent so much of the loss of power from Europe given to Asia and the Americas, but the Liberals were too bull-headed and shortsighted to even grant him his tariff plans. On British boards (not Sup Forums but elsewhere) he has quite the fan club. The whole of the twentieth century could've been very different if he had succeeded.

You guys should read Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers. The book explores what caused the First World War and it is more complicated than the Archduke got shot and German expansionism.

France had a Germanophobe attitude and wanted any reason to fight and crush them after the Franco-Prussian War. The Russians were interested in the Bosphorus and had further incentive after the Balkan Wars ended with the Ottoman Empire expelled from the Balkan region. The Russians were seen by everyone as the empire to fear due to their military and economic might (with foresight of course, it was not true).

Germany was a new empire that wanted to have colonies and the economic muscle and resources that come with it, but the established British (who were also Germanophobic) and French empires prevented them from getting any good territories. The Germans tried to make alliances with the Russians and Brits because they knew that in a war, they would not be able to handle two fronts (they knew France wanted to fight them), and if war with France erupted, the Russians would respond to France. This is why the Germans went on to arm themselves.

The Kaiser was no more than a talker. Like Trump today, he had no tact and said retarded shit that even his government ministers ignored how volatile he was. He would be for waging military campaigns but whenever the prospect of war seriously came into question, he would always find an excuse to why Germany was not ready and could not engage in conflict.

I'm leaving out a lot more information, but the war was a result of grudges and suspicions from governments. Also the Serbs, they had a big part as to why the war erupted.

how many people know the truth about willy?

Why not, the world couldn't be any more fucked as it is right now

youtu.be/Ly94C-rdPIg

sigh- what if....

>Also the Serbs, they had a big part as to why the war erupted.

being this bluepilled

>You guys should read Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers.
a book which widely has been criticized for simply leaving out most of the evidence for Germany's war plans, and builds it thesis mainly upon secondary literature.
There were no sleepwalkers, they all knew what they were doing, Clark's work rather has to be seen as a modern propaganda work - the real villains were/are Serbia and Russia...

Neither World War should have ever happened. All of these (((leaders))) should have been executed for what they did to Europe.

Though I agree with the book omitting a lot that, but the what the book does leave the reader with is that war was inevitable, it was only a matter of what and when it would happen, and that a lot of players' decisions either consciously or unconsciously led to the conflict. The error was in underestimating just how big the war would turn out to be, and expecting a quick result after the Balkan Wars and the Russo-Japanese War.

And yeah, Clark does shift the blame on Russia and Serbia. The first chapter of the book talks a lot about the regicidal Serbs, and the middle portion of the book talks about Russia and her interests.

I wasn't defending Germany too much in so much as to point out that they weren't the main instigator. But yes, Serbia and Russia and their actions and influences made the war possible.

war was inevitable because of the hawks in Berlin and Vienna, no one else. (Also the idea attacking big powers like F and RUS just would mean another Balkan war is false, many predicted huge casualties then.)

In order to get more help from Berlin, Tisza proposed to Berchtold he should mention in Berlin following :
(note Tisza to Berchtold, dating Sept. 11, 1914)

"Das [sic!] wir den Krieg auf die klipp und klare Äußerung sowohl Kaiser Wilhelms wie des deutschen Reichskanzlers beschlossen haben, daß sie den Moment für geeignet halten und es mit Freude begrüßen, wenn wir ernst machen."
(ÖStA, PA, Kr500, XXXXVII: Tisza an Berchtold, 11.9.1914.)

"That we decided to go to war after the point-blank statements of both Kaiser Wilhelm as well as the Reichskanzler, which saw the time was suitable and they would receive with cheers if we took the gloves off."

Germany wasn't interested in the Serbs though, and the Arch-Duke's assassination had nothing to do with the outbreak of war other than serving as an pretext. Clark delivered a candy for the Eurotards which like stories about the evil Russkis and Serbs rather than questioning their leaders' policies.

A quote from Joseph Maria Baernreither's (member of Austria's Imperial Council) diary, Dec. 2, 1914.

"In Deutschland bestand die Befürchtung, daß wir nicht mitgehen würden, wenn uns der Anlaß des Krieges ferner liegen würde. In Algeciras waren wir noch Sekundanten, später nicht mehr, sondern in der Marakkokriese nicht standhaft zu Deutschland. Krieg mußte aber, wie die Dinge sich durch die Schuld der deutschen und österreichisch-ungarischen Diplomatie entwickelt hatten, kommen. Daher ergriff Deutschland nach dem Mord in Sarajewo die Gelegenheit beim Schopfe und benutzte den Anlaß, der sich auf österreichischen Seite ergeben hatte. Das ist die Geschichte des Krieges"
(ÖStA, HHS, Nachlaß Baernreither, K6: Tagebücher, Eintrag vom 2.12.1914.).

"In Germany there was the fear we would not go along if the reason for war was not clear. In Algiers we still were seconds*, later not anymore, but not steadfast with Germany during the Morocco Crisis. War, however, how the things had developed due to the guilt of German and Austro-Hungarian diplomacy , was inevitable. Thus Germany, after the assassination in Sarajevo, took the opportunity and used the cause [opportunity] which had appeared on the Austrian side. This is the story of war."

* de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekundant

>It would have prevented WW2

So you admit WWII happened because you couldn't take responsibility for your actions?

Germany wanted a war to build their empire.

It was only Britain who didn't want a war, as we were already at the top and a war would only serve as a risk to our status.

Yes but without sending commies to Russia.

Any book recommendations? I want to read more on this (also, you should post in /his/, we need more of this).

I never got the impression of "evil Serbs" and "evil Russkies", but that the blame lies on many individual characters like Sazonov, Pasic, Berchtold, Poincaré.

>Any book recommendations?
I would recommend anything from Fritz Fischer about WW1, he made a very detailed research and laid the foundation of using first hand archive material rather than just public speeches and general staff notes. It is tons of stuff, but worth it. Annika Mombauer too.

>I want to read more on this (also, you should post in /his/, we need more of this).
ok

>I never got the impression of "evil Serbs" and "evil Russkies", but that the blame lies on many individual characters like Sazonov, Pasic, Berchtold, Poincaré.

The Pincare' who was the first French president to dine in German embassy, conciliant and ready to compromise? F didn't declare war even after German had violated the French border and shot at French soldiers.
In today's context, there is a wave of revisionism here in order to "Europeanize" WW1, everybody was a bit guilty....

would this be a better world?

no, commies everywhere, unless germany wins again