Was there a good side and bad side in ww1?

[Tattila the Hun]

Edmund Blackadder put it best, I should think.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l5a9m_t6PN0

Very nice way to summarise things, "Bollocks".

Great series, BTW. Has one of my favourite quotes of all time.

"Good luck, everyone."

Needs context, mind.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Of course the German's assessed the utility of machine guns in modern war, if they hadn't their army wouldn't have been filled with them.

The reason teh Schlieffen plan failed was because the power of the right hook was weakened to apease the ego of the crown prince. He was in command of one of the armies opposite the main French defenses on the French frontier, and he wasn't happy with playing the decoy.

In the end the Germans diverted strenght not only to the crown prince, but to all the armies along the French frontier greatly weakening the main thrust through Belgium. The Germans actually made progress along the French frontier instead of boucing off, which shows just how unessessarily strong they were.

They also took troops from the right wing to reinforce the eastern front.
It makes me wonder, suppose the Germans had concentrated on knocking out Russia first? With 2 or 3 extra armies on the eastern front they might have attacked southeast from Prussia, seperating Russia's armies and possibly eliminating the bulk of the troops Russia had earmarked for the attack on Germany. They might have found themselves sweeping the Russians out of Poland by the end of the year.

[Andemagne]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
... They might have found themselves sweeping the Russians out of Poland by the end of the year.

and?


I think that troop increase early in the war would have benefitted western front more thatn eastern front.

[Mr. Harley]

I sadly cannot find my source, but I read somewhere, supported by quotes from contempory French leaders, that France was worried about the shifting population demographics between them and Germany, in Germany's favor. They were anxious to start a war, so they could recapture Alsace-Lorraine and also regain their honor lost by losing to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war (reference the many good post on the glories of war and unrealistic expectations on all sides).

Do not neglect the issue of a liberal German Kaiser Frederick III, the cultivating of his thoroughly screwed up son (joint effort by Frederick and Queen victoria's daughter) by German conservatives as a foil to the father's progressive and liberal ideas, and the untimely death of Frederick III due to mistreated throat cancer. Which was mistreated due to his aquiescence to his wife's insistance on bringing in a "British doctor" when all his German doctor's wanted to operate.

It metastisized, spread, was operated on too late, and he died. There was a fair bit of German resentment over this. Now add in the spoiled little brat of a prince suddenly becoming Kaiser (Wilhelm III) - who has spent the better part of a decade being buttered up and toadied to by the German conservative establishment. He promtly gets rid of his most experienced foreigh policy advisor, Otto von Bismark, and his brown-nosing cronies set up the series of policy blunders that on the German side were decisive in helping WWI come about in the form we know.

If Kaiser Frederick III had instead listened to his German doctors, and lived another 33 years like his father, history might have been VERY different. Even though Bismark would have already died by 1914, he very well have been able to, under the auspices of Frederick III, created a permanent foreign policy unit, i.e. state department, that might well have prevented WW1. He held the replacements under Wilhelm II in contempt, and rightly predicted that their incompetence would hurt Germany. My two cents worth.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason teh Schlieffen plan failed was because the power of the right hook was weakened to apease the ego of the crown prince. He was in command of one of the armies opposite the main French defenses on the French frontier, and he wasn't happy with playing the decoy.

Nope, plus out in the eastern front to protect Koenigsberg. They left the 8th army to defend all of East Prussia. Prittwitz couldn't handle his postion when Rennenkampf and Samsonov ran the 1st and 2nd Armies right at Koenigsberg, and ordered a retreat behind the Vistula.

Moltke sacked Prittwitz after his retreat order was started, and put Hindenburg and Lunendorff in their places. He also sent 3 corps and 2 calvary divisions from the right flank to help shore up East Prussia.

Moltke was the one who also reinforced the border along the Rhine to prevent French incursions.

The Schlieffen plan would have worked, but the armies didn't circle around Paris, and the wheel turned in front of the city, which meant the French didn't have to worry about being outflanked.

[Deity Dude]

The winners write history therefore the winners are always the "Good Guys" or at least until a new winner comes along.

If Germany had won WWII, Nazi Europe would profess that Hitler was a great patriot and unifyer of Europe.

Questions about Good Guys and Bad Guys are totally subjective and dependent upon the morals of the winner.

For example, if the Native Anericans could have somehow defeated the Europeans who took over their land the Europeans (currently called Americans) would not be considered the "champions of liberty" but the champions of attempted genocide.

History is what it is. Good Guys and Bad Guys are determined by the winner. I am not saying I don't have a personal view of who the "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" are. But I know that I would certainly have a different opinion if I grew up in world where someone else was in power.

Afterall, does anyone or any group of people consider themselves the "Bad Guys"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Afterall, does anyone or any group of people consider themselves the "Bad Guys"

Timur Lenk/Tamerlaine and Attila spring to mind... Timur Lenk professed to be a devout Muslim, yet made war on Muslims himself, both Shi'ite 'heretics' and Sunni Turks.

Of course he also made war on infidels and Christians, and was preparing to invade China when he died, so he was fairly comprehensive in his bloodthirstiness.

I sadly cannot find my source, but I read somewhere, supported by quotes from contempory French leaders, that France was worried about the shifting population demographics between them and Germany, in Germany's favor. They were anxious to start a war, so they could recapture Alsace-Lorraine and also regain their honor lost by losing to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war (reference the many good post on the glories of war and unrealistic expectations on all sides).

Some French revanchists were eager to begin a war, but many French politicians were not- and certainly regaining Alsace-Lorraine was a great spur to French warmongers and populist ideologues, but many French were also opposed to another European war.

The German High Command was quite keen for a 'pre-emptive' war with Imperial Russia- they were particularly concerned about Germany's Slav minority and the growing industrialization of Russia and the increase in railway networks there.

Their ideal situation would have been a German-Austrian war with Russia- German intelligence on Russian forces had been boosted by observers during the Russo-Japanese War (some of these same observers seemed to go out of their way to offend the Japanese with racial slurs, though...).

[McLaine]

Some reflections

It seems to me that unlike ww2 (in ww2 the allies were clearly the good guys and the axis the bad guys), in ww1 the 2 sides were even in goodness and evilness....

I think there are 2 things we shouldn't mix here...

The "good guys" would be whoever is allied with you, "the bad guys" the opponent. In that sense, for the allies, the bad guys were both in WW1 and WW2 the Germans.
One could of course point out that the bad guys are those who start the war; perhaps but nations can be provoked into war as well. In the case of WW1, as someone mentioned, an act of terrorism (avant la lettre).

Good and evil... the Germans did in Belgium (being a Belgian I got the stories via family) in ww1 terrible things (escpecially the "Ulanen"). Not so in WW2; they behaved as the perfect gentlemen at first. Unless you were with the resistance, then they did terrible things. The ss was obviously evil, but many of the German army were not.
Everything is relative. My father was put to work (forced labour) in Dresden... he has a thing or two to tell about who he thinks were the evil ones, after he survived the allied bombing.

I think to explain the Germans in WW2, we have to turn to the models used in Dungeons

[McLaine]

... just to complete...

AD&D,

With regards to law you have Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic and with regardst to moral standards good, neutrality and evil. This makes for 9 possible alignments.

I assume the Germans were the LAWFUL faction meaning there were the Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil ones.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

[Heraclitus]

Ahh, yes but the Germans behaved much worse in WW2 in Eastern Europe. So they where clearly lawful evil or neutral evil.

[Heresson]

Germans used polish cities, just like in ww2, as target practices for new kinds of weaponry. They reduced the oldest polish city, Kalisz, to 10% of its population by bombarbment but that doesn't include the ones that fled), though there was no military in it. They wanted to force out 2mln of Poles from western Congress Kingdom to make room for german settlers. They wanted to turn entire eastern Europe into their colony.
It's a common thing for westeners to think Germany was wronged after ww1 and only this caused Hitler. No, Germans had very long traditions of imperialism and mistreatment of other peoples. From the perspective of central/eastern Europe, the result of the war - German defeat, but also severe weakening of Moscow - was what allowed them to regain freedom.

[McLaine]

Germans used polish cities, just like in ww2, as target practices for new kinds of weaponry. They reduced the oldest polish city, Kalisz, to 10% of its population by bombarbment but that doesn't include the ones that fled), though there was no military in it. They wanted to force out 2mln of Poles from western Congress Kingdom to make room for german settlers. They wanted to turn entire eastern Europe into their colony..

Yes, I would agree on that.

It's a common thing for westeners to think Germany was wronged after ww1 and only this caused Hitler.

No, I think you are simplifying that a bit... I don't think you can generit was one of the reasons, but certainly not the only one.