Gallipoli Landings - Page 2 - 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 Thoss
#1149405
:?:


Why do you lend open ended support for the Ottomans? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.
User avatar
By Cid
#1149419
[quote]Why do you lend open ended support for the Ottomans? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.

LOL how do you mean they entered willingly, the tragedy of WW1 was that because of the alliances, mechanised mobilisation and the break down of the congresses of Europe, the road to war became an unstopable one. 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.

It was not the abundance of agression but the legitimation of agression that set this tragedy in motion.
Last edited by Cid on 19 Mar 2007 18:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1149744
Why do you lend open ended support for the Ottomans? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.


Why do you lend open ended support for the British? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.

Incidentally, the British learned the hard way about getting their asses beat by the Turks :lol:
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1149762
Here is an extract from the book

"They got it wrong: The Guinness Dictionary of Regretable Quotes"

"The Turk is an enemy who has never shown himself as good a fighter as the white man."

A Staff Officer's briefing to troops before Gallipoli landings, 1915, no doubt intended to be 'good for morale'.


lolz
User avatar
By satan
#1149868
Is it just a coincidence that the invasion occurred the day after the Turks began the Armenian Genocide?
User avatar
By Thoss
#1149919
Why do you lend open ended support for the British? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.


Um...okay. That makes no sense. I'm just curious why you excuse Ottomans entirely. On the same token, I never said I give open ended support for the British cause during the First World War - you put those words in my mouth.

My point was that its silly to say that the Ottoman's were the victims in the war. All parties, British, French, Ottomans and especially the Germans had a hand in the aggression that made World War one.

Incidentally, the British learned the hard way about getting their asses beat by the Turks


Incidentally, who's empire enitely dissolved about two years after this? From the scope of the entire war, It looks like the Turks got their asses handed to them by the British - from the other direction of course.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1149996
It looks like the Turks got their asses handed to them by the British - from the other direction of course.


With some help from the Russians and General Winter
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150011
Um...okay. That makes no sense. I'm just curious why you excuse Ottomans entirely. On the same token, I never said I give open ended support for the British cause during the First World War - you put those words in my mouth.

My point was that its silly to say that the Ottoman's were the victims in the war. All parties, British, French, Ottomans and especially the Germans had a hand in the aggression that made World War one.


So, why do you expect me to feel sorry for the British imperialists, who entered the war simply because they could? Allied aggression started the war, so I don't see why the British should receive any praise for their actions during it.

Incidentally, who's empire enitely dissolved about two years after this? From the scope of the entire war, It looks like the Turks got their asses handed to them by the British - from the other direction of course


Yay, let's celebrate another injustice at Allied hands :roll:
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150030
So, why do you expect me to feel sorry for the British imperialists, who entered the war simply because they could?


Again, you keep reading things that aren't there. When did I suggest that you should have sympathy for Great Britain? Please direct me.

Allied aggression started the war, so I don't see why the British should receive any praise for their actions during it.


Allied bellicosity was a factor, no doubt. However, German aggression was a far greater short term cause for the First World War. The Kaiser, his Generals, the German Parliament, and a great deal of the German nation were not to be denied their dominate position in Europe.


Yay, let's celebrate another injustice at Allied hands


Injustice? The Allies made war on a lawful combatant and made them pay with what was left of their dying empire. The Turks, by contrast, conducted a genocide upon Armenian civilians. What's the greater injustice?
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150042
Again, you keep reading things that aren't there. When did I suggest that you should have sympathy for Great Britain? Please direct me


I'm just tired of sympathy for the Allied cause. It wasn't a just one.

Allied bellicosity was a factor, no doubt. However, German aggression was a far greater short term cause for the First World War. The Kaiser, his Generals, the German Parliament, and a great deal of the German nation were not to be denied their dominate position in Europe


:lol: German aggression? The war was started by joint Serbian and Russian aggression against Austria-Hungary. Don't attack the Kaiser for coming to the aid of an ally when the Russian kriegshetzer clamored for war.

Injustice? The Allies made war on a lawful combatant and made them pay with what was left of their dying empire. The Turks, by contrast, conducted a genocide upon Armenian civilians. What's the greater injustice?


I think the genocide may have happened, but nevertheless, it now is used as propaganda to target Turks. The actions of the Ottoman Empire were far more commendable than those of the British imperialists.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150055
I'm just tired of sympathy for the Allied cause. It wasn't a just one.


Was not the United States part of the Allies?

German aggression? The war was started by joint Serbian and Russian aggression against Austria-Hungary. Don't attack the Kaiser for coming to the aid of an ally when the Russian kriegshetzer clamored for war.


World War One was a conflict where it is historically safe to say that aggression can be disseminated among the participants. However, many scholars, including most famously Fritz Fischer have pointed to powerful documentary evidence that suggests that Imperial German leaders knowingly torpeadoed conferences to resolve the situation in AH, gave AH the famous blank cheque backing on their ultimatium, and then issued a stern and unreasonable ultimatium to France. They wanted war more than any other power.
After the war, many of the leaders responsible for the war drive funded and conducted campaigns to remove the blame from German. One of the most successful revisionist propaganda campaigns in history, it successfully persuaded many American and British scholars in the 1930s that Germany was being unfairly blamed. This feeling of unfairness towards Germany in the English speaking nations had consequences later in the 1930s

The actions of the Ottoman Empire were far more commendable than those of the British imperialists.


So I suggest Armenian Genocide - a purposful and premeditated mass murder of nearly a million and you come back with "actions of the British Imperialists."

Please enlighten me. And If its simply "British Imperialism", you'd be wise to get off your high horse and understand that the United States was a avid member of the Imperialist club by 1898, (One could even go back to the US' inception for imperialism, and genocide too)
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1150057
I'm just tired of sympathy for the Allied cause. It wasn't a just one.


Lesser of two evils.

Had the central powers won, what would the outcome have been?
Serbia absorbed into the Austro-Hungarian empire?
Chunks of Russia and France taken into Germany?

With the central powers collapse long occupied nations were reborn.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150077
Was not the United States part of the Allies?


What's your point?

World War One was a conflict where it is historically safe to say that aggression can be disseminated among the participants. However, many scholars, including most famously Fritz Fischer have pointed to powerful documentary evidence that suggests that Imperial German leaders knowingly torpeadoed conferences to resolve the situation in AH, gave AH the famous blank cheque backing on their ultimatium, and then issued a stern and unreasonable ultimatium to France. They wanted war more than any other power.
After the war, many of the leaders responsible for the war drive funded and conducted campaigns to remove the blame from German. One of the most successful revisionist propaganda campaigns in history, it successfully persuaded many American and British scholars in the 1930s that Germany was being unfairly blamed. This feeling of unfairness towards Germany in the English speaking nations had consequences later in the 1930s


There was sentiment in Germany left over from Bismarcks's era and the Franco-Prussian War that embraced the war, but you seem to have it backwards. After Adolf Hitler took power and helped lead the world into WWII, nations have been on damn-near crusades to produce anti-German propaganda, and blame Germany for all of Europe's woes. If we must blame someone, then I will blame Britain, France, and the U.S., who saddled the disgusting Treaty of Versailles on the backs of innocent Germans.

So I suggest Armenian Genocide - a purposful and premeditated mass murder of nearly a million and you come back with "actions of the British Imperialists."


Because Britain cared nothing, and still cares nothing, of the plight of Armenian Christians. They entered into a war for imperialism and now they want to claim the moral highground over the Sultan's policies later into the war? Unbelievable.

Please enlighten me. And If its simply "British Imperialism", you'd be wise to get off your high horse and understand that the United States was a avid member of the Imperialist club by 1898, (One could even go back to the US' inception for imperialism, and genocide too)


The only unjust war the U.S. ever participated in was WWI, and that was for foolish reasons, rather than imperialistic ones.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150086
What's your point?


Not to worry, you answered it.

There was sentiment in Germany left over from Bismarcks's era and the Franco-Prussian War that embraced the war, but you seem to have it backwards.


Scholarship says you are the one who has it wrong. See, for example:

Holger Herwig "Clio Decieved: Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany after the Great War" International security, 12:2 (Fall 1987)

and

Immanuel Geiss, "The Outbreak of the First World War and German War Aims," Journal of Contemporary History 1:3 (July 1966)

Anything by these authors and Fritz Fischer provide quite compelling evidence that the German government in the lead up to the War was not 'innocent' as you claim. It points to quite the opposite. Shit, even read your standard University level text book at its pretty much leaning towards the Fischer thesis. Not that this is a case closed historical debate but certainly the bulk of the quality work out there points to German aggression tipping the scales to World War.


after Adolf Hitler took power and helped lead the world into WWII, nations have been on damn-near crusades to produce anti-German propaganda, and blame Germany for all of Europe's woes.


No doubt there has been propaganda, but after the war it was still a consensus that blame should be at least spread evenly among the Allies and central powers. Infact, even still after the war many people still blamed the Allies like you - hence where Mr. Fischer's thesis emerged to contest the consensus of German innocence during the war.


If we must blame someone, then I will blame Britain, France, and the U.S., who saddled the disgusting Treaty of Versailles on the backs of innocent Germans.


Simply pointing to Versailles and Article 238 as proof of Allied guilt because they're harsh then you are going to need a tighter case.

The only unjust war the U.S. ever participated in was WWI, and that was for foolish reasons, rather than imperialistic ones.


For starters...Was western expansion at the expense of Creek, Chereokee, Seminole, Miami, Shawnee etc etc etc Justified?
User avatar
By soron
#1150088
However, many scholars, including most famously Fritz Fischer have pointed to powerful documentary evidence that suggests that Imperial German leaders knowingly torpeadoed conferences to resolve the situation in AH, gave AH the famous blank cheque backing on their ultimatium, and then issued a stern and unreasonable ultimatium to France. They wanted war more than any other power.


Fischer's theory is lacking in a few points. 100 years ago, mobilization took a little longer than today but it still had a tremedous impact on the economy of a country. So when Russia mobilized in July 1914, that was a hand going for the gun in the holster. From that point on the German options were rather limited as the result of the British encirclement of Germany would clearly be a two- or three-front war, something to be avoided at all cost - we're still talking about railroads being the needle eye for logistics. A lot of the troop movements still was carried out on the soldiers own feet. So the country who mobilized first had the drop on the slower country.

I know there were a few unwise decisions, but in retrospect all the powers involved made those.
The Russians: Backing up Serbia against Austria-Hungary after one of their Citizens killed the Austrian heir apparent was an unwise move apparently.
The Germans: I don't blame the Kaiser for expressing unmistakingly our support for AH. We're talking about possibly facing Europe's largest military power at land, that was Russia. I think the real mistake if there was one was the German big ship program which unnecessarily spooked the British. Range back then depended on how much coal a ship could carry, and the range of a battleship made it unsuitable for operating foreign on a regular basis. That's what cruisers were for. Had the German empire built more cruisers and less battleships - which would have been appropriate since the whole point of the German fleet program was to build up a fleet that could support Germany's colonial ambitions - the British attitude towards Germany might have been different and that encirclement which later triggered the domino effect that resulted in a world war might *not* have happened.
France: As seen in Versailles the French were quiet interested in a payback for the war of 1870/71.
Britain: British fleet doctrine used to be the "two power standard" which, with the new ambitious German shipbuilding program, became a lot more difficult to maintain. The building of battleships which could be regarded as a European force rather than one to project power overseas was regarded as a threat to Britain which resulted in the entrapment of Germany and AH between the 2 largest armies on land (other than the German obviously), that's Russia and France, and the largest fleet, Britains.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150128
Scholarship says you are the one who has it wrong. See, for example:

Holger Herwig "Clio Decieved: Patriotic Self-Censorship in Germany after the Great War" International security, 12:2 (Fall 1987)

and

Immanuel Geiss, "The Outbreak of the First World War and German War Aims," Journal of Contemporary History 1:3 (July 1966)

Anything by these authors and Fritz Fischer provide quite compelling evidence that the German government in the lead up to the War was not 'innocent' as you claim. It points to quite the opposite. Shit, even read your standard University level text book at its pretty much leaning towards the Fischer thesis. Not that this is a case closed historical debate but certainly the bulk of the quality work out there points to German aggression tipping the scales to World War


Why do you have so much hate for Germany that you try to shift responsibility onto them, where it does not belong? What German aggression took place came after Allied aggression. Militarism and glorification of imperialism in Germany? Irrelevant, because the same existed in Britain, France, Russia, etc. The only act I can see Germany possibly might be at fault for was invading neutral Belgium to reach France, but the British still had the choice of not starting an unprovoked war of aggression that didn't concern them. The burden lies on the Brits.

No doubt there has been propaganda, but after the war it was still a consensus that blame should be at least spread evenly among the Allies and central powers. Infact, even still after the war many people still blamed the Allies like you - hence where Mr. Fischer's thesis emerged to contest the consensus of German innocence during the war.


Nonsense. People can talk about taking responsibility all day long, but I never heard Britain or France take responsibility for forcing collective punishment upon innocent Germans and creating a sequence of events that led to World War II.

Simply pointing to Versailles and Article 238 as proof of Allied guilt because they're harsh then you are going to need a tighter case.


Just one in many crimes of aggression the Allied forces committed out of paranoia and a hatred for German society.

For starters...Was western expansion at the expense of Creek, Chereokee, Seminole, Miami, Shawnee etc etc etc Justified?


At least we had a clear reason; Manifest Destiny.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1150155
The only act I can see Germany possibly might be at fault for was invading neutral Belgium to reach France,


Why is that a "possibly might" ?

What did Belgium do that gave Germany the right to invade them?
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150162
Why do you have so much hate for Germany that you try to shift responsibility onto them, where it does not belong?


First - I'm not doing the shifting Palestinian The shift has already been done. Second - I, unlike yourself, have provided evidence in the form of scholarship from reputable and well researched authors. You on the otherhand just put words in my mouth and put out baseless platitudes about German innocence and British guilt. This is Not history.

hat German aggression took place came after Allied aggression. Militarism and glorification of imperialism in Germany?rrelevant, because the same existed in Britain, France, Russia, etc.


Yes, but German had a much more detailed and deep rooted plan for a Hegemonic position in Europe. Let me explain my argument.

By the first decade of the 20th century, a politically consolidated (an Authoritarian state with few opposition groups), Economically competitent (the marriage of Eastern landed and western commericial interests) and proud military tradition had German elites, after being pushed out of economic expansion globally, feeling encircled by competiing powers.

However, German military elites thought they could rest easy with their Schlieffen plan which delt with the scenario of a two front war. When France increased its conscript army size and Russia began construction of western railways - the German military's Schlieffen plan was seriously threatened. Time was of the essence for German planners, German political-military leaders feared economic and military encirclement was only a matter of time.

The memory of the quick easy victory in 1870 was very tempting and in the minds of German generals, if Germany was to delay 5 years, it might be too late.

The idea for a quick pre-emptive war to secure economic hegemony in Europe was widely supported among various interests in government, the military, business, universities, and expansionist minded interest groups like the Pan-German League. These interests pushed for Germany to either diplomatically or militarily achieve some sort of expansion to maintain the hitherto fantastic economic growth.

When Serbian Nationalist's shot the Archduke in August 1914, Germany knew full well that military action by A-H on Serbia would provoke a Russian response. German leaders also knew that a Austro-hungarian - Russian war would lead to the break out of a general European War. Knowing full well the consequences, German leaders pused A-H to give a hardline and unacceptable ulitimatium (Serbia accepted all but one clause - which would have sacrificed Serbian Soverignty). The German government then pledged full support for A-H (the famous blank cheque) and torpedoed British efforts for a Bilateral solution to the crisis.

So - Austria declares war. Then Russia, admittedly, makes the aggressive and clumbsy posture of full mobolization against both Germany and A-H (Russia's General staff had no plan for partial mobolization against A-H alone). Thus at this point we have a regional conflict where there is essentially even blame. Here is the point of departure and perfect opportunity for German leaders. The Schleffien plan dictated that France must be defeated first - however, at the moment, war was only threatening to break out the east. German served France with an unacceptable ultimatium - a diplomatic tool used as a pretext for war by the German government. Germany demanded that France affirm absolute neutrality in the coming German Russian war, and to show good faith, transfer soverignty of key fortresses on the Franco-German boarder.

Clearly, German officials did everything they could to ensure that the opportunity to carryout the Schleffien plan would come. A war with Russia first would not work and had to, in the short run, force France's hand.


The only act I can see Germany possibly might be at fault for was invading neutral Belgium to reach France, but the British still had the choice of not starting an unprovoked war of aggression that didn't concern them. The burden lies on the Brits.


Britain and Germany (Prussia) were both signatories in the 1839 committment to Belgian Neutrality. Thus, from a Legal stand point, Britain's declaration of war was in fact, legal, since Germany violated Belgian neutrality and ignoring the treaty as 'just a peice of paper'.

However, your assessment, Blaming the British for declaring war on Germany after GERMANY invaded Belgium and GERMANY violated the treaty is incorrect. For hundreds of years, Great Britain has never allowed a single power to peacefully control all the channel ports - its commercial and political survival depends on it. Thus, when Germany threatened to knock France out of the channel area Britain was bound to declare war out of its own interests - to suppose otherwise would be willfully blind.

I never heard Britain or France take responsibility for forcing collective punishment upon innocent Germans and creating a sequence of events that led to World War II.


This is because the causes of the Second World War are more indemic and complicated that simply Versailles. To pin it a vindictive France is to ignore the systematic economic, political, and social weaknesses created in the post-world war one era. Verrsailles was a part of it, but explaining the second world war is a whole lot more complex than the ahistorical tripe you come up with.

Just one in many crimes of aggression the Allied forces committed out of paranoia and a hatred for German society.


As I'm sure a victorious Germany would have been France's best friend right? :roll: Indemnities, such as the fat one Prussia made France pay in 1870 were common among all European powers.

At least we had a clear reason; Manifest Destiny.


A clear reason? So your clear reason for forced removal and killings of Native American's was that God ordained that the land was the property of white Americans? I mean, I'm a realist and all but that's crap. At least the British had a legalistic and security pretext for going to war in WW1. Many American wars can hardly claim the same thing.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1150163
Because Britain's going to war over Belgium's neutrality was completely irrational. It is obvious the Brits were just looking for an excuse to spill the blood of young Germans. They were thirsty for war and Germany gets raked over the coals simply Fur Kampfen mit Ehre.

It's amazing how biased people are today because of the events of WWII.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1150166
Because Britain's going to war over Belgium's neutrality was completely irrational.


No it wasn't. As I said, It was quite with their historical commitment to maintain a balance of power on the channel ports.

It is obvious the Brits were just looking for an excuse to spill the blood of young Germans


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

@Seeker8 United Kingdom (UK) total HMRC tax […]

The Popular Vote...

It bores me I agree. In fact, I remember callin[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

So how's Trump doing on the economy? 1. Budget […]

I don't see why Qatar would take that risk. I'm […]