Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Why do you lend open ended support for the Ottomans? They entered willingly into a World War. Aggression in this case was entirely legitimate.
"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'.
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
It looks like the Turks got their asses handed to them by the British - from the other direction of course.
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, 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
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.
Yay, let's celebrate another injustice at Allied hands
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 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
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'm just tired of sympathy for the Allied cause. It wasn't a just one.
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.
The actions of the Ottoman Empire were far more commendable than those of the British imperialists.
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?
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
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)
What's your point?
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.
The only unjust war the U.S. ever participated in was WWI, and that was for foolish reasons, rather than imperialistic ones.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
For starters...Was western expansion at the expense of Creek, Chereokee, Seminole, Miami, Shawnee etc etc etc Justified?
The only act I can see Germany possibly might be at fault for was invading neutral Belgium to reach France,
Why do you have so much hate for Germany that you try to shift responsibility onto them, where it does not belong?
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.
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.
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.
Just one in many crimes of aggression the Allied forces committed out of paranoia and a hatred for German society.
At least we had a clear reason; Manifest Destiny.
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
@Seeker8 United Kingdom (UK) total HMRC tax […]
It bores me I agree. In fact, I remember callin[…]
So how's Trump doing on the economy? 1. Budget […]
I don't see why Qatar would take that risk. I'm […]