WW1 to end on Sunday for Germany

Tabnabs

link

Lousy google translation of a German article, but on Sunday the final payment will be made by Germany in the way of reparation for WW1. Crazy stuff!

Snickers Man

This is old news in Germany. De Paper had it yesterday.

The Daily Show discussed it yesterday. That stupid woman Terry Prone said there was "absolute justification" (listen from about 7min 30 sec in) for levying such a fine on Germany because of the weaponry they used. Including poison gas.

Like the allies didn't use it either. In fact, one of the most famous victims of a poison gas attack was a young corporal in the German army called Adolf Hitler. It had such an effect on him that he banned the Wehrmacht from using gas on the battlefield in WWII.

Blaming Germany for WWI was a classic example of victor's justice. And it proved to be a very bad idea. Whatever the dim Ms Prone thinks.

dubtom

Snickers Man wrote: »

Blaming Germany for WWI was a classic example of victor's justice. And it proved to be a very bad idea. Whatever the dim Ms Prone thinks.

Eh what?? So Germany didn't start WW1? I'm confused and bemused.

Snickers Man

That's not actually what I said. I poured scorn on the notion that the Germans were the bad guys simply because of the weapons they used, which seemed to be Ms Prone's point. If there is a moral distinction between blowing somebody to pieces with a high explosive shell or killing him quickly in a gas attack, I struggle to see what it is.

And I also said that making them pay reparations was a very bad idea. Which it was. For numerous reasons. It precipitated economic collapse in Germany. It forced a precarious triangular system of loans between America, Germany and the other Western Powers, particularly Britain and France, which when they collapsed created the conditions which plunged the world into war again.

Furthermore, it only strengthened Germany's industrial base in the medium term at the expense of those of Britain and France, which was not really what was intended.

Therefore it would have been a bad idea even IF Germany were solely responsible for the First World War, which no serious person now alleges they were. Germany does bear its share of the burden of guilt but no more so than the other major powers of the day.

Remember: it all started as a war on terror. If you weren't with the anti terrorist forces, you were agin them.

And which side did we Brits (we were all just Brits then) end up on?

Ironic isn't it?

FiSe

dubtom wrote: »

Eh what?? So Germany didn't start WW1? I'm confused and bemused.

No it was Austria-Hungary who started it all.

marcsignal

FiSe wrote: »

No it was Austria-Hungary who started it all.

good funny stand-up video about why it may have started Here

and some more press releases

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/germany-settles-outstanding-wwi-debt/418430.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8029948/First-World-War-officially-ends.html

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=189637&R=R1

depaly

Not sure that a gas death was quick.
An exploding shell could be a lot quicker!!!
The Germans were the first to use gas.
And a lot of other terror tactics in WW1.
It was the Germans who had planned
to conquer Europe - just as in WW2.
I understand that Germany had stopped
paying the reparations, with no big outcry
from the Allies, by the end of the Twenties.
It was the Wall St Crash, and subsequent
economic developments that collapsed
virtually every economy.....
The reparations were a convenient argument
for the Germans at that time - and for pro Germans
ever since.
So you hear it ad nauseam in this country!!!
Germany ended up paying till now because
no one thought after WW2 that Germany would
ever be reunited!!!!

FiSe

But remember, that Napoleon was the same b.stard as 'them Germans'. Wonder if France was paying up something for the years of terrorising the rest of Europe?

depaly

FiSe wrote: »

But remember, that Napoleon was the same b.stard as 'them Germans'. Wonder if France was paying up something for the years of terrorising the rest of Europe?

France terrorized itself for ten years before Napoleon!!!!
I understand that you're confused - because there was
a hundred years between Napoleon and the Kaiser.
The concept of 'reparations' might not have been quite
the same in the early 1800's.
When it comes to the horrors of war, as in life, everyone
pays eventually. In their own way.
Blood or money or damnation.
A lot of Irish 'patriots' wanted to throw in their lot
with said Napoleon. Some did.
Just as some IRA 'patriots' were involved with
Hitler.......
Ironic, isn't it???
Somewhat naive, in both cases also.
As if Napoleon or Hitler would have conquered
Ireland, and then handed it back to the Irish!!!!

depaly

Also remember that Austria, Prussia and later Britain
declared war on Revolutionary France and attacked.
To restore the monarchy, of course.
This led to mass volunteering for the French Army,
and later provided Napoleon with his huge army!!!!
So the 'Germans' were at least partially involved
here as well!!!!!!
All very complicated!!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Not sure that a gas death was quick.
An exploding shell could be a lot quicker!!!

And it "could" be a lot less lethal. Like removing one, two three or four limbs while leaving all essential working parts intact. You're not seriously trying to suggest that one method is more moral or immoral than the other?

The Germans were the first to use gas.
And a lot of other terror tactics in WW1.

Bull****.
Name one nasty thing the Germans did that the Allies didn't do. Bombarding cities with artillery or planes? Nope, both sides did that.

Starving civilian populations with naval blockades/commerce raiding? Nope. The Allies did that too. Rather more effectively than the Germans

Savage reprisals against indigenous people who rose up to overthrow the imperial yoke? Er, I think we know all about that.

It was the Germans who had planned
to conquer Europe - just as in WW2.

Again. Bull****.

They did indeed have acquisitive eyes on large parts of Eastern Europe which they saw as being ripe for "civilising" and "colonising" with German volk. Just as the Nazis later did. But, they had no territorial interest in anything beyond their western borders. They just wanted to ensure that France and Britain were kept in their boxes while they got on with what was important in the east.

Remember that the Schlieffen Plan was not about gathering France into the Reich; it was about knocking them out of the war quickly and then doing a deal with their government which ensured that they remained non combatants. And denied their territory to the British.

This plan worked stunningly successfully in World War II. They messed it up in 1914.

I understand that Germany had stopped
paying the reparations, with no big outcry
from the Allies, by the end of the Twenties.
It was the Wall St Crash, and subsequent
economic developments that collapsed
virtually every economy.....

Well kinda. The Wall St Crash caused the Americans to call in their loans that they had made under the Dawes and Young Plans to enable Germany to meet their reparations payments. America stopped lending to Germany--Germany stopped paying to Britain and France. Call it a liquidity crisis similar to our current "Credit Crunch" if you like. There are certain similarities: money availability that was taken for granted for a long time suddenly dries up. With pretty grim domestic consequences.

The reparations were a convenient argument
for the Germans at that time - and for pro Germans
ever since.
So you hear it ad nauseam in this country!!!

It's not "Pro German" to point out that reparations were and are a really bad idea. And it's not "Pro German" to baulk at the idea that they should be held solely accountable for starting World War One. It was imperial rivalry between the great powers, exacerbated by burgeoning nationalist movements in the territories ruled by those great powers which collided explosively to create the holocaust that was World War One.

And it was the mismanagement of the post war world which paved the way for the re-emergence of Germany under ultra aggressive expansionists in the 1930s which set the scene for World War II.

That's not Pro German; that's just common sense.

depaly

Hi Snickers Man!!!

That was a rather forensic reply to my posting!!!!
Glad to see that it generated such interest!!!

Who mentioned 'morality'??? You did!!!!

Something the Allies didn't do???
The Germans crucified a Canadian soldier in Belgium.
If a Belgian town resisted in any way, they would take
out, say 200 people, and shoot them.
A new and deliberate policy.
As a going away present, they destroyed every Church
and public building in Belgium as they left.
Just a few 'terror tactics' off the top of my head.....

The Schlieffen Plan had every intention of capturing
France and Belgium - and keeping it.
How naive you are!!!!!!!
Incidentally, are you suggesting that conquering
'large parts of Eastern Europe' had some justification
that taking over the West wouldn't?????????
Also, you sound very disappointed that they messed up
in 1914!!!!!!!!!

Right or wrong, reparations were a very important
part of Hitler and Nazi propaganda.....
Germany wasn't held solely accountable.
Austria-Hungary, as constituted, ceased to exist.
Mismanagement??? Germany had full sovereignty postwar.
Notwithstanding economic problems which
bedevilled the whole of Europe and the US.
The German people made their own choices.
Like electing Hitler.

For a fella who claims not to be pro German,
you certainly come across as pro German!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Something the Allies didn't do???
The Germans crucified a Canadian soldier in Belgium.

The British were notorious for "crucifying" some of their own men, particularly conscientious objectors and socialists who refused to participate in a "capitalist war." They tied them to posts in No Man's Land, usually in a cruciform shape, and let both sides take pot shots at them.

If a Belgian town resisted in any way, they would take
out, say 200 people, and shoot them.
A new and deliberate policy.

I refer you to the memoirs of Sir Arthur Harris, later chief of Bomber Command in World War Two (you want to talk about ruined churches and public buildings???) for a forthright and unapologetic account of how the RAF dealt with villages in the newly "liberated" territories of what had been the Ottoman empire if they "resisted" the new regime which they felt was not all that they had been promised.

The Schlieffen Plan had every intention of capturing
France and Belgium - and keeping it.
How naive you are!!!!!!!

Oh! Why didn't they "keep" France following the wars which they clearly won then?

Why did they give France back to the French (minus Alsace Lorraine or Elsass-Loringen as they call it) in 1870 after the comprehensive victory in the Franco Prussian War?

Why did they return France to the French in 1940, albeit to a compliant puppet government, led by one of the great French heroes of the First World War let it be said?

Granted, they occupied the Northern and Western coasts including Paris but France was allowed to run its own affairs, including its overseas empire, without any hindrance, outside of purely military matters, from the Germans.

If Germany had "taken over France and kept it" why didn't it occupy France's north african colonies and use them to attack the British there? Why didn't they demand that France declare war on those who were trying to prise its African colonies away? After all, France had been subjected to some pretty dire provocation. Such as the destruction of their Mediterranean Fleet in Algeria, and the deaths of several thousand French sailors, at the hands of its erstwhile British Allies.

No. Germany wanted its Western Borders secure. Its eyes were eastward, as always. They could have, had they been so smitten by hubris, raised a banner over the Champs Elysee in 1940 with the legend "Mission Accomplished" or whatever that is in German.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that conquering
'large parts of Eastern Europe' had some justification
that taking over the West wouldn't?????????

No more justifiable than Britain or France's conquering of large parts of Africa and Asia.

Right or wrong, reparations were a very important
part of Hitler and Nazi propaganda.....

Well of course they were. Doesn't mean that, Nazi propaganda aside, it's not fair comment to call them a bad idea.

For a fella who claims not to be pro German,
you certainly come across as pro German!!!!

Shows how wrong you can be. I'm pro looking at history dispassionately. Which is something that is very hard for anybody subjected to 60 odd years of British and American propaganda to be.

depaly

Hello again.

You misunderstood, accidentally or on purpose.
I was referring to 'nails in the hands and feet'
crucifixion.....

Interesting how you know so much about the
politics of British soldiers 'shot at dawn'....
Perhaps you are letting the mask slip just
a little with your claims for a Socialist
allegiance!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ostensibly this thread was about reparations
for WW1.
You do seem to be all over the place, reaching
into WW2 to drag out examples to suit.
I certainly don't mind, however.
It requires a remarkably hard neck to be
damning of Allied 'atrocities' when the list
of Nazi ones could run to several pages on this
particular thread!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your mention of bombing reminds me that the Germans
were the first to bomb civilians from the air
in WW1.
First to bomb, first to use poison gas......
I hope that you're recognizing a pattern!!!!!!!!

You are heart warming in your description of the
fall of France and it's aftermath!!!!!!
Those German fellows seem almost humanitarian
and magnanimous in their approach to Government!!!!
I'm sure the Jews shipped off to the gas chambers
were consoled by the fact, as you put it, that
'France was allowed to run it's own affairs'.....

You make it sound so reasonable that they should
'secure their borders' by invading France, Belgium,
Holland, Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg.... and then
head 'eastward' for another land grab!!!!!!

And it's laughable, if not pathetic, that someone who
claims to have been 'subjected to 60 odd years of
American and British propaganda' can turn out to
be an apologist for German atrocities in two world
wars!!!!!!!!!

You were somehow able to overcome all that 'brainwashing'!!!!!!!
A peculiar example of freethinking and revolutionary
ideas, no doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Hello again.

Ostensibly this thread was about reparations
for WW1.

Central to the issue of reparations was the notion that Germany was guilty of starting WWI. It was no more guilty than any of the other big powers. This is not just my opinion. It is shared by many professional historians. Including the likes of Niall Ferguson, who is himself an apologist for empire.

I also commented on the knee jerk statement on national TV by a "PR guru" that the Germans were deserving of guilt because of their use of poison gas.
This I feel is nonsense.

The whole issue about who was "The first" to deploy a particularly new and lethal form of warfare be it gas, planes, submarines or whatever is down largely to whoever developed that technology first. The Western powers, all of them, had proved themselves more than willing to deploy the most devastating of weaponry against the most primitive opponents in the years leading up to WWI.

Remember the pithy and very true observation by Hilaire Belloc:

"Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim gun and they have not."

One of the things that made WWI so shocking for its participants was that for the first time in 50 years they were facing an opponent who had weaponry every bit as devastating as they had. Hence the fraught poetry.

Ever heard any desolate war poetry from the Sudan campaign, or the Zulu War, or the Indian Mutiny? No? Neither have I. It's all Rudyard Kipling style cheerful Tommy Atkins enduring the savagery of the natives before bravely bearing up the white man's burden and inflicting condign retribution with his superior firepower.

Now if the Zulus had had Tommy guns........

I don't think those who had shown themselves more than capable of devastating civilian populations in places such as South Africa, which they had just before WWI, have any grounds for moral indignation with regard to Germany's actions in Belgium.

You do seem to be all over the place, reaching
into WW2 to drag out examples to suit.

Not so. You accused me of being naive with regard to German intentions towards France. I was merely pointing out what they had done following other conflicts to support my argument. It's called evidence.

You are heart warming in your description of the
fall of France and it's aftermath!!!!!!
Those German fellows seem almost humanitarian
and magnanimous in their approach to Government!!!!
I'm sure the Jews shipped off to the gas chambers
were consoled by the fact, as you put it, that
'France was allowed to run it's own affairs'.....

I think you'll find it was the French themselves who did that. But hey, let's bring it back to WWI.

I'm not saying the Germans didn't carry out atrocities. But the notion that such atrocities were the reason for the British, French and Russians to fill themselves full of moral indignation is fanciful.

depaly

On a previous posting you mentioned the
Schlieffen Plan.
Now you are saying that Germany was no
more guilty of starting WW1 than any of
the major powers.
You are beginning to contradict yourself...

It's amusing how far in time and place you're
having to travel to find some justifications!!!!
From forward to WW2, it's backwards to British
colonial wars of the 19th Century!!!!

Britain was completely unprepared for WW1 -
certainly in terms of infantry.
Germany had amassed an army of 4 million.
More than all the other beligerrents
combined.
Hence their arrogance and eagerness to
strike hard into Belgium and France.
Britain had no choice at that stage but
to declare war.
So your contention that Germany was no
more guilty than, for example, Britain
( of starting the war )
is frankly ridiculous!!!!
And that's entirely apart from their
conduct during the war!!!

You were annoyed with Terry Prone because
she said the Germans used poison gas -
even though it happens to be true!!!!
Just one fact from WW1, but the truth
nevertheless!!!!

You're also deluding yourself if you
think that anti Semitic Frenchmen were
solely responsible for the deportation
of French Jews to the death camps........

And if I may refer again to your contention
that 'France was allowed to run it's own
affairs'.......
It's strange, therefore, that the American
and British troops were welcomed as liberators
in the months following D-Day!!!!!!!!

And I entirely agree with the 'notion' that
British, American and Russian troops who
entered the Concentration Camps should have
felt some 'moral indignation'........
No more than the 'Tommies' who found the
crucified Canadian........
Or the relatives of Edith Cavell........

As for Niall Ferguson - who thinks that Britain
should have stayed out of WW1 and let Germany
win!!!!!!!!!!!! I can perhaps understand you
quoting him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

I'm not contradicting myself at all.

There was a context to WWI other than the Schlieffen Plan. It is only common sense to discuss the reasons for the outbreak of that war within that wider political and social context of the time.

Was the Schlieffen Plan responsible for Britain and France (and Australia and New Zealand and Japan) gobbling up Germany's African and Asian possessions? Most of which were achieved as early as the spring of 1915. (With the notable exception of Tanganyika and East Africa where they still hadn't defeated the Germans by Armistice Day)

Was the Schlieffen Plan responsible for Britain and France expanding a huge proportion of their effort on dismembering the Ottoman Empire, with consequences that persist to this day?

Was the Schlieffen Plan to blame for the thousands of British deaths in the Balkans (including many from the remnants of the 10th Irish Division after they had been so mistreated in Gallipoli?

I don't think so. This was all done for wider strategic and political reasons that had little to do with the specifics of German military action in Europe.

You're placing great store in the impact of a single Canadian soldier allegedly "crucified" by the Germans in Belgium. I can't comment on the specifics of the case, nor do I deny it happened, but it could hardly be justification for a declaration of war, especially as the Canadians didn't arrive in France until well after the war was under way.

So the Germans committed atrocities. Are you saying hand on heart that the allies didn't? Do you think this is something of which the armies of Western Democracies are incapable? And you call me naive!!!

Yes. The Germans invading Belgium were ordered to be harsh with "francs tireurs", irregular troops who resisted their advance. Yes. This was a dastardly and brutal thing to do. What was their justification for it? They felt that bringing a swift end to the war would ultimately lead to fewer casualties, both German and otherwise and was therefore justified. Even if it meant many innocent civilian deaths.

This is a familiar argument, let's call it an expedient, advanced by the supporters of all armies, western or otherwise who launch offensive actions in furtherance of their political interests. I'm sure if you rack your brains you might have heard it put very convincingly by people other than Germans.

As for your other points about Britain's small standing army being an indication of its peaceful intent: Britain always had a small army--it preferred to put its faith in its huge navy.

I never denied that Germans used poison gas; I just refuse to believe that it justified their being deemed "guilty" of starting the war.

And as for Niall Ferguson: he may be many things but he's hardly a socialist, one of the things you accused me of being. (Inaccurately, I might add)

He at least is honest enough to portray the war in something approaching its strategic and political context. Which is something we should all try to do.

del_c

Snickers Man..not an easy opponent there; I think he's Willie O'Dea in disguise

For the record the first use of posion gas in WWI was by the French.

During the first World War, the French were the first to employ gas, using 26 mm grenades filled with tear gas (ethyl bromoacetate) in August 1914. The small quantities of tear gas delivered, roughly 19 cm³ per cartridge, were not even detected by the Germans. The stocks were rapidly consumed and by November a new order was placed by the French military. As bromine was scarce among the Entente allies, the active ingredient was changed to chloroacetone.[3]

...both sides tinkered with it, but the Germans were the first to really use it effectively. They all had the knack of it pretty quickly though.

Who was the last country to use it? British and US Backed IRAQ in the Iran / Iraq war of the 80s.

depaly

Hi Snickers Man.

You are very understanding of the need
to invade Belgium as an 'expedient'.
In 1914, Belgium had been accepted,
by treaty, as neutral for over 70 years.
Accepted by all the major powers,
including Germany.
German excesses were not described as
'the Rape of Belgium' for nothing.
Dismissed as 'British Propaganda' for
decades - recent research has indeed
revealed the brutality visited on the
Belgian citizenry.
Your views are interesting, coming
from someone who lives in a neutral
country......

Are you seriously in doubt that Germany
didn't want to widen it's 'Empire'
around the world??? It had to accept
the consequences of defeat in that
'context'.

I'm not relying on the crucifixion.
I'm sure that I could not do the
list of atrocities justice!!!!!!!!!!
I mentioned Edith Cavell, and there's
also the sinking of the Lusitania
and the burning of Louvain.
And the gas, and the bombing.....

There were no 'francs tireur' in the
Library of Louvain which they burned
to the ground - containing 230,000
books. They seemed to have a thing
about books, as they showed later on!!!!

I note your admiration for Niall Ferguson!!!
While I enjoy and welcome contrarian views
- it can undoubtedly enrich debate- Mr.
Ferguson's slide off the credibility scale
in a big way!!!!
He maintains that had Britain stayed out of
WW1 - and Germany had won - a kind of
European Union would have been created!!!!!
Just a tad anachronistic!!!!
He also claims that Germany was Europe's
least militarist country in 1914!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough said.

And getting back to the original thrust of
this thread.... he has said that Germany
could easily have paid off the reparations,
if there had been the political will....
What do you think of that???!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

Of course Germany was keen to expand its empire in the years leading up to World War One.

She was not the only one.

It was very much the aspiration of any country at the time which saw itself as a great power to expands its influence, culture, administration and economy into new areas. Especially those which could contribute greatly to the wealth and prestige of the empire through their raw materials and/or established industries and/or their potential to become a lucrative market for other products of the empire.

That's the real cause of World War One: the rivalry between the major empires of the day to acquire new colonies and where appropriate to gobble up the possessons of fading empires such as those of the Austrians and Ottomans.

What happened to all the German colonies "liberated" by the Allies during the war? Were they given freedom and national self determination? Er, no. The British and French Empires were both bigger at the end of the First World War than at the start.

Most tellingly, both had made major inroads into the countries of the Middle East, with France taking over Syria and Lebanon, the British establishing a League of Nations Mandate over Palestine and setting up dependent puppet goverments, with armies largely funded by the British Exchequer and commanded by British officers in Iraq and Transjordan.

We're still living with the consequences of those adventures.

Britain France and Belgium took over most of Germany's colonies in North West and East Africa. South Africa, then a subject part of the British Empire took over German South West AFrica (Namibia). In the Pacific, New Zealand took over the administration of German Samoa, and still holds great sway over those islands to this day. Samoa is a leading source of a prized raw material in New Zealand: namely, rugby players.

A complicating factor bedevilling the growth of the European empires was the growing national consciousness of the indigenous peoples inside those empires. Any people chaffing under the yoke of a major European empire could be guaranteed the warm support of that empire's rivals.

So the Russians made all sorts of friendly noises on behalf of the Bosnians and of course the Serbs, who were independent of but greatly mistrusted by Austria. FRance, in particular, was very supportive of Polish independence. Poland was in 1914 divided between Germany, Austria and Russia.

And of course anybody making trouble for Britain inside the United Kingdom (ie the Irish) could rely on German munificence to build up their armed forces. Both Unionist and Nationalist Volunteer movements were supplied with weaponry by Germany. Was it because the Germans liked us so much? No. It was because "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Given that all empires were seeking to expand, and making no bones about it, it's a little rich to say that Germany was solely responsible for World War One. She was only doing what all the other great powers had done, were doing and would continue to do.

Not that I approve of any of their intentions but it's worth bearing in mind the context of the time.

depaly

del_c wrote: »

Snickers Man..not an easy opponent there; I think he's Willie O'Dea in disguise

For the record the first use of posion gas in WWI was by the French.

During the first World War, the French were the first to employ gas, using 26 mm grenades filled with tear gas (ethyl bromoacetate) in August 1914. The small quantities of tear gas delivered, roughly 19 cm³ per cartridge, were not even detected by the Germans. The stocks were rapidly consumed and by November a new order was placed by the French military. As bromine was scarce among the Entente allies, the active ingredient was changed to chloroacetone.[3]

...both sides tinkered with it, but the Germans were the first to really use it effectively. They all had the knack of it pretty quickly though.

Who was the last country to use it? British and US Backed IRAQ in the Iran / Iraq war of the 80s.

At first glance, I thought it was the
British and US who used the gas...
Then I realized that it was just a
very creative adjective, and that
Saddam Hussein had actually made
the decision!!!!
I suppose the last or latest indigenous
independence-seeking terrorist group
on the continent - who murder innocent
civilians - is the Irish backed ETA.....

depaly

Hello again, Snickers Man.

It was Germany trying to 'expand it's empire'
on the European continent that was largely
responsible for WW1!!!!!

I'll just repeat that - the European continent.

To quote your own assessment, how was Britain
going to start a war on the European mainland
with a small army and huge navy??????

That certain nationalities 'chaffing under the
yoke' - like the Serbs - would be supported
by Russia, was exactly the pretext that
Austria-Hungary and Germany needed to attack
East and West. Documents have revealed their
intentions. Even the timetable of attacks,
declarations of war, and mobilizations should
convince the open minded and neutral.....

I think that you may have inadvertedly gone to
the heart of the matter!!!!
I find that if you get under the surface of
pro German sentiment, there's usually the
reality of anti British and/or anti American
feelings.
The 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', indeed!!!!

During the 20th century there were many in
Ireland who voiced clear support, or at least a
sneaking regard for, an astonishing array of
obnoxious characters.
Racist Boers, Huns who 'raped' Belgium, Nazi
mass murderers and an Argentinian junta who
tortured and killed thousands of their own
people.
Why?? Because they were in conflict with
'perfidious Albion', of course.

I think that we have got nearer to the truth.

Snickers Man

Every serious army in the world had and has plans in readiness for all of the likely military scenarios in which it is likely to find itself embroiled. Of course the Germans had plans to be used in the event of a strike into Belgium.

The British and French had all sorts of plans to launch attacks against the Germans and other countries, many of which were drawn up long before war was even dreamt of. The basic British plan to attack Gallipoli, for example, was drawn up in 1906!!

Most of these plans never come to fruition because they're never needed. I'm pretty sure the British military has a plan to follow should it ever feel the need to reoccupy the 26 counties of our island which it doesn't possess at the moment. That doesn't show evidence of intent; merely of preparation.

To say that the Germans manipulated the situation in the Balkans just so they could invade Belgium and France is nonsense. They knew they were going to be in a war because Russia was determined to force its way into the Balkans and come into conflict with Austria and Turkey thereby drawing Germany in. As an inevitable treaty-bound consequence, Germany would find itself fighting against Britain and France too. So she invoked her Schlieffen Plan to attempt to knock France out of the war before Britain could land troops on the continent in any force.

She failed.

Who was it who attempted to stop the war in 1916? Who made strenuous efforts to negotiate a just and honourable peace? The Austrians. What sort of reaction did that get from Britain and France? Zero.

They knew what they wanted and a cessation of hostilities without major gains was not it.

del_c

depaly wrote: »

At first glance, I thought it was the
British and US who used the gas...
Then I realized that it was just a
very creative adjective, and that
Saddam Hussein had actually made
the decision!!!!
I suppose the last or latest indigenous
independence-seeking terrorist group
on the continent - who murder innocent
civilians - is the Irish backed ETA.....

No, the Irish State, to my knowledge, don't supply ETA with arms, munitions and intelligence. Neither do we look to box in their "adversory", the spanish state, as the western powers did with the newly islamicised Iran. So, no "backed" is actually quite a factual adjective in this case. Or do you have details of Irish backing of ETA.

Iraq was actively supported by the West during the Iran Iraq war, this is fact. So is the fact the West turned a blind eye to Iraq's use of chemical weaponry when it suited them.

.....saddling guilt on Germany for the war because they used chemical weapons is not a logical stance, for somebody British.

It's never something that came up in british popular discussions of Germany's WWI guilt...probably because most people sitting in glasshouses don't start throwing stones.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Every serious army in the world had and has plans in readiness for all of the likely military scenarios in which it is likely to find itself embroiled. Of course the Germans had plans to be used in the event of a strike into Belgium.

The British and French had all sorts of plans to launch attacks against the Germans and other countries, many of which were drawn up long before war was even dreamt of. The basic British plan to attack Gallipoli, for example, was drawn up in 1906!!

Most of these plans never come to fruition because they're never needed. I'm pretty sure the British military has a plan to follow should it ever feel the need to reoccupy the 26 counties of our island which it doesn't possess at the moment. That doesn't show evidence of intent; merely of preparation.

To say that the Germans manipulated the situation in the Balkans just so they could invade Belgium and France is nonsense. They knew they were going to be in a war because Russia was determined to force its way into the Balkans and come into conflict with Austria and Turkey thereby drawing Germany in. As an inevitable treaty-bound consequence, Germany would find itself fighting against Britain and France too. So she invoked her Schlieffen Plan to attempt to knock France out of the war before Britain could land troops on the continent in any force.

She failed.

Who was it who attempted to stop the war in 1916? Who made strenuous efforts to negotiate a just and honourable peace? The Austrians. What sort of reaction did that get from Britain and France? Zero.

They knew what they wanted and a cessation of hostilities without major gains was not it.

I agree that the military men have all
kinds of plans......

Germany implemented the Schlieffen Plan
in 1914!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was Germany and Austria who tried to
negotiate a peace in 1916.
Why??????
Because after trying and failing to
conquer large parts of Europe, they
could see the writing on the wall
in terms of ultimate defeat.

After the slaughter of millions, they
wanted to return to the status quo.

Honourable?????

depaly

del_c wrote: »

No, the Irish State, to my knowledge, don't supply ETA with arms, munitions and intelligence. Neither do we look to box in their "adversory", the spanish state, as the western powers did with the newly islamicised Iran. So, no "backed" is actually quite a factual adjective in this case. Or do you have details of Irish backing of ETA.

Iraq was actively supported by the West during the Iran Iraq war, this is fact. So is the fact the West turned a blind eye to Iraq's use of chemical weaponry when it suited them.

.....saddling guilt on Germany for the war because they used chemical weapons is not a logical stance, for somebody British.

It's never something that came up in british popular discussions of Germany's WWI guilt...probably because most people sitting in glasshouses don't start throwing stones.

My 'link' was as tenuous as your smear!!!!
Sinn Fein/IRA support ETA.
Sinn Fein/IRA are Irish.
Technically correct, like your own 'fellow
traveller' approach to UK/US/Iraq.

'Saddling guilt', as you put it, on Germany,
for using poison gas in WW1, is entirely
appropriate - since it actually happened!!!!

'....for somebody British...' Who's British???
Are you???

It's possible, since I'm not familiar, like
yourself, with 'British popular discussions'!!!!!

del_c

depaly wrote: »

My 'link' was as tenuous as your smear!!!!

Sinn Fein/IRA support ETA.
Sinn Fein/IRA are Irish.
Technically correct, like your own 'fellow
traveller' approach to UK/US/Iraq.!!!!!

Sorry Willy, technically not correct because the US and UK STATES supported IRAQ during the Iran / Iraq War as a matter of foreign policy.

ETA are supported by a criminal association and a small political party operating from the Ireland and Northern Ireland (i.e, not the Irish State) That is not comparable, logically or morally. Any kind of traveller would recognise this; just ask any of your constituents ;-)

depaly wrote: »

'Saddling guilt', as you put it, on Germany, for using poison gas in WW1, is entirely appropriate - since it actually happened!!!!.!!!!!

Sorry former Minister O'Dea, Germany was saddled with the guilt for WWI because it had violated Belgian neutrality first. The War Guilt Clause had nothing to do with Germany's use of chemical weapons, as was advocated by that BBC bimbo in the second post of the thread. It would hardly have been illogical for Britain and France to do this, seeing as how they had used these weapons themselves.

depaly

Hi Del.

Your continuing ad hominem speculation
as to what my imagined identity might
be, is a poor substitute for rational
debate!!!!!!!!! Willie O'Dea????

Your forlorn attempt at labelling me as
'British' was similarly irrelevant and
futile.

What's comparable, logically and morally,
is that Germany used poison gas as a
'matter of foreign policy'.
The same Germany viewed as 'gallant allies'
by the 1916 rebels.

Who mentioned the 'War Guilt Clause'????

'Saddling Germany with guilt' - that's a
horse of a different colour!!!!!

As for my ETA example, the irony was clearly
lost on you!!!!!!

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

Who mentioned the 'War Guilt Clause'????

'Saddling Germany with guilt' - that's a
horse of a different colour!!!!!

The OP, almost by definition, because the reparations (the topic of this thread) were foisted on Germany by that very clause.

FiSe

Interesting discussion developed here, but:
Jeez,
some
posts read
like
a
poetry

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

The OP, almost by definition, because the reparations (the topic of this thread) were foisted on Germany by that very clause.

Del mentioned the 'War Guilt Clause' in his last
contribution - as if I had been referring to it.

I had never heard of it!!!!!!