Gallipoli Landings - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150169
No it wasn't. As I said, It was quite with their historical commitment to maintain a balance of power on the channel ports


Oh please. You and I both know the Brits were looking for any excuse to enter the war. No, "Belgian neutrality" is not a good enough reason. Not when the reason that neutrality was violated was because of Britain's beloved Allies' aggresssion in the first place.

Please explain. You insist on making yourself look foolish by providing no argument (other then baseless sayings) and providing no evidence


Explain how Russia, France, and Britain ganged up on Germany, dismissed legitimate grievances of Austria-Hungary, and launched an aggressive war with lame excuses such as perceived German militarism? In case you forget yourself, the first aggressor of this war was Gavrilo Princip and the bastards in the Serbian government who moved in to protect his ilk. Russia interfered with a nation's legitimate grievance, and as far as I'm concerned, Austria-Hungary and Germany has enough of an excuse right there to pummel Russia back into the Dark Ages.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150172
h please. You and I both know the Brits were looking for any excuse to enter the war. No, "Belgian neutrality" is not a good enough reason. Not when the reason that neutrality was violated was because of Britain's beloved Allies' aggresssion in the first place.


Again. No evidence or argument. And furthermore - beloved allies suggests Britain had a firm alliance with France and Russia. This is too strong of a suggestion. Britain entered the war on the Franco-Russian side because it was in its own security interests.

Explain how Russia, France, and Britain ganged up on Germany, dismissed legitimate grievances of Austria-Hungary, and launched an aggressive war with lame excuses such as perceived German militarism


You've ignored all the evidence I have provided. So this will be my last post on the subject.

Ganged up? Do you realize you are mimicking perfectly the sentiment of german military leaders at the time? Please Germany was just fine. German military was the most profound cause turing a regional war into a European war and then turning a European war into a global war. Germany brought it on itself.

These 'Lame excuses' happen to have the weight of historical documentation and archival evidence. Your actual lame excuses and apologies for German militarism carry no intellectual weight.

In case you forget yourself, the first aggressor of this war was Gavrilo Princip and the bastards in the Serbian government who moved in to protect his ilk.


It was not known at the time who or what organization conducted the assination. No investiagtion was conducted immediately since the Austro-Hungarian Ultimatium was so unacceptable.

Russia interfered with a nation's legitimate grievance, and as far as I'm concerned, Austria-Hungary and Germany has enough of an excuse right there to pummel Russia back into the Dark Ages.


:roll:

Produce some legitimate evidence other then the same line over and over again. It gets tiresome.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#1150302
You both have legitimate arguments. Though, I tend to go with the crisis of capitalism argument. It was in everyone's economic interest to knock the competition away and corner the imperial market as best as possible.

Everyone was to blame.

-TIG :rockon:
User avatar
By soron
#1150348
Ganged up? Do you realize you are mimicking perfectly the sentiment of german military leaders at the time? Please Germany was just fine. German military was the most profound cause turing a regional war into a European war and then turning a European war into a global war. Germany brought it on itself.


The whole idea of forming an alliance is to gang up. As it happened to be, France was allied with England, and England was allied with Russia.
Being at war with Russia meant that automatically Germany was at war with England and thus, France. This is not a question of holding a congress. You form an alliance so you don't have to hold a congress when war breaks out. So what were the German options ?
Option #1, attacking Russia who already had the advantage in mobilizing their army, the largest on the continent ?
Option #2, attacking France, a legitimate war target who did't have the same advantage as Russia, but surely would have the same advantage if Germany would attack Russia first.

Realistically, #1 never really was an option. Since France didn't right away pull out of a war (and why would they ? They wanted revenge for 1871 and they were allied with the largest army AND the largest fleet) so the only option remaining was to execute the Schlieffen plan, end the western war early then take on the Russians with the full force of the German army.
The Seven Year's war against Russia hadn't been forgotten but this time surely no miraculous turn of events would have saved the Germans as it happened in 1762.
So what was the relative strength at beginning of WW1 ?
The Entente had more soldiers, more heavy artillery, larger resources, larger reserves of weapons and materials, and more ships.
So why would Germany want to get into that mess more than other major European forces ?
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150793
You both have legitimate arguments. Though, I tend to go with the crisis of capitalism argument. It was in everyone's economic interest to knock the competition away and corner the imperial market as best as possible.

Everyone was to blame.


The Marxist argument has many commendable points. However, Far-right-sage has no legitimate argument (as in backed up by any respectable historical evidence or authority) and refuses to partake in mature historical discussiom (merely dealing in absolutes).

Being at war with Russia meant that automatically Germany was at war with England and thus, France


This is factually false. Britain did not have a formal, binding alliance with the other Entente powers. France and Russia were bound by robust treaties that involved military coordination. Britain on the other hand merely signed agreements with France and Russian on Imperial spheres of influence. Thus prior the the War, its safe to say Britain was a heavily leaning towards the entente, but not formally in it until Germany cavalry entered Belgium.

The Entente had more soldiers, more heavy artillery, larger resources, larger reserves of weapons and materials, and more ships.


Yes. In the long run they did. Germany thought they could win before the full effects of what became a total war came to bare. They thought it would play out like it did for their Fathers and Grandfathers in the 19th century.

So why would Germany want to get into that mess more than other major European forces


You answer your own question in your post. Germany thought it could win. But it had to be in a war with France first (Hence its ultimatium to France in early August), to knock it out quickly, then turn its army around to face Russia. Britain joining the entente was thought as incosequential since Britain traditionally did not feild a respectably large army.

Since France didn't right away pull out of a war (and why would they ? They wanted revenge for 1871 and they were allied with the largest army AND the largest fleet) so the only option remaining was to execute the Schlieffen plan, end the western war early then take on the Russians with the full force of the German army.



Germany, by issuing the Ultimatium to France turned it into a general European War. The Germans wanted to engage the french first and not the Russians as per the Schleffien plan. And indeed you're right that France was a willing party to war, but Germany had more agency in escalating the conflict first to all of Europe then the world.

Also - France did not have the largest fleet. Look no further than Britain's Two power rule.
User avatar
By Jasonh
#1150837
Far Right Sage you need to hit the books buddy. You got stomped!
By Unperson-K
#1162191
Besides the Ottoman Empire was actually very pro-British. It was Britains reluctance for an alliance, and some of the Pasha's pro-Greman views that eventually drove the Ottomans to the side of the Germans.


Actually, I think the Ottomans siding against the British had probably more to do with the fact that the British were allied with the Russians, the traditional enemies of the Ottoman Empire. The reason the Ottomans were pro-British for most of the 19th Century was simply because the British were anti-Russian.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls General Election Summary 2022 Date[…]

Claims that mainstream economics is changing rad[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]