Was there a good side and bad side in ww1?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

It's why y'll seem to expect your politicians to be plaster saints too, I think.

Seeing as I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and am expecting to vote for Hillary in a couple of weeks when Virginia has its primarly, I guess I don't fall into that category then.

However, the German militarists had been pressing for an 'early war' to forestall Russian dominance- and Kaiser Wilhelm II had mental health issues. But then Tsar Nicholas was a mental incompetent easily persuaded by his wife, and the Turkish Sultan was borderline deranged. As for the House of Habsburg... and don't mention Alsace Lorraine and revanchists.

Of course the Brits were entirely blameless.

What have you done with the real Molly Bloom?

[Alexander I]

I think each participant was itching for a fight to prove how great their new 20th Century weaponry was and to build up their already tremendous national egos. So I think they're all to blame for what happened. That being said, I think it was unfair for Germany to have to shoulder all of the blame and penalties for the war, just because they voluntarily gave up to stop the bloodshed. (France )

[Tattila the Hun]

Not sure how voluntary that was. I seem to recall they were starving.

[Andemagne]

the german army was still in france and held 3/4 of belgium, when their home front stabbed them in the back. (german home front )

IIHUC USA joined the war because it had loaned ALOT of money to Britain and France. if they lose war, US don't get their money back.



LOTM: CP = Central Powers? post war settlement?




now that I think of it..... afew years back I took 'History Of German 2nd Reich'-course in my local Uni. researcher teaching that course said that, german army leadership decided allready in 1912 that 'first chance we get, we go to war'. for internal reasons and for external reasons. there was even a fancy german term for this. I'll dig up my notes and et back to you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The U.S. was made sympathtic to the Entente cause by the persistent referrences to the Rape of Belgium by the "Huns."

That and indiscriminate U-Boat war, which resulted in the deaths of American citizens and the loss of U.S. shipping.


The Zimmerman Telegram kinda helped too...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Andemagne
the german army was still in france and held 3/4 of belgium, when their home front stabbed them in the back. (german home front )

In fact the German Offensives in 1918 had run out of steam- they were losing disproportionately large amounts of elite troops for very little ground or advantage gained.

Along with this, a united Allied command and the use of combined tank, infantry and aircraft forces by the Allies enabled the Entente to advance.

The naval blockade of the Continent also played a significant role in denying resources to the German Empire...

[Ben Kenobi]

It was a stab in the back!

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Ecthy


You don't honestly believe that.

I do not think that it would have been easy for England to go and help France had Germany not invaded Belgium. The invasion of Belgium was a gambit: if Germany was able to reach Paris early enough, it would be a very good move, otherwise, very bad one. It ended being a very bad one, even if Germans were close to capture Paris.

(Oh, BTW, I am half-german, so I am not saying all this because any bad feeling about the country. I have a part of my heart that loves germany)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The naval blockade of the Continent also played a significant role in denying resources to the German Empire...

Indeed. When you population is starving to death and your last gasp offensive fails, there is nothing you can do.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dauphin
It is odd that the American school system espouses good and bad. I was taught WW1 just "was". Specifcally the general impression given was that whilst the causes are debated, it was accepted that everyone was glorifying war expecting one to come. The actual carnage that followed was more a result of frustration and desperation of the commanders who couldn't cope with the stalemate they found themselves in.

I don't think the American school system espouses good and bad for history. Certainly I never saw a text book that painted it in such terms.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, for some reason the American school system likes to espouse a good vs. evil narrative in just about everything. Nothing just "was" or had equal good and bad on each side. You don't get that stuff until late in high school, or, more likely college history classes.

Is that how it was at your high school? Can you paraphrase some examples?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed. When you population is starving to death and your last gasp offensive fails, there is nothing you can do.

Let's not forget the 100 days offensive and Reds organizing all over the place. The Allies are lucky that Germany had it together enough to be able to crush the Reds.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Is that how it was at your high school? Can you paraphrase some examples?

It's horribly true. Read a book called, "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by Neil Postman.

[chequita guevara]

James Loewen, not Postman. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/

Postman wrote, Amusing Ourselves to Death

[chequita guevara]

BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.