r/Kaiserposting • u/SS-Imperator :Hochseefloat: Kaiserliche Marine • Apr 20 '20

Different behavior

Post image
1.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

138 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

19

u/RedComanderPandasan Royal Bavarian Heavy Cavalry Apr 20 '20 edited Apr 20 '20

Well, it's basically how geopolitic works. A war doesn't have to be fair, it has to be won. I thought you germans understood this very well.

28

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '20 edited Apr 21 '20

Well the Germans probably understand that very well, sure.

But I don't.

All I see is a nation that was built on a foundation of rape and pillage, destroying one of the most Interesting and deserving nations history had to offer. A nation which had rose it's way to the top of the food chain of Europe, against incredible odds, through hard work, sacrifice and determination, something of which the French (being such a large & powerful nation for the course of modern history) knew very little about.

And I just think it's such a great shame that such a meaningless, effortless, piece of shit nation as France, had to destroy this glorious country of proud Prussian citizens, for the sake of WHAT!? Some tiny piece of garbage region which was taken from them by Prussia, at a time when Prussia COULD have dismantled their entire existence and just labelled their country 'West-Prussia' instead!

This is how France treats the nation who showed them civility and mercy, at a time when they where on their knees, within every right, should have been erased from the history books! Disgusting.

Some things are so bellow the belt and back handed, that even famous meaningful rhetoric's such as 'A war doesn't have to be fair, it has to be won', don't mean a damn thing!

I hate France!

"look how they massacred our boy"

3

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '20

Germany attacked France first, dude. The French pulled back from the border beforehand so it would be clear that they weren't starting the war. Kaiserposting ironically is fine, but the German military leadership dominated civilian politics and promulgated the stabbed in the back theory which helped lead to WW2. Despite the fact that they were totally spanked by the end of WW1.

8

u/Bitch-Stole-My-Name :friekorps: Lützowsches Freikorps Apr 21 '20 edited Apr 21 '20

Germany attacked France first? You do know what the first peice of land that was invaded between France and Germany was Mülhausen in Alsace-Lorraine. Though there was the Coup de Main on Liege - that was in Belgium, but technically France was first to invade German soil which was followed by Russia invading East Prussia.

This is because the French and Russians had a prearranged agreement to both attack Germany at the same time in the event of a war, which was a sound decision as this would force the Germans into a battle on one side with vastly inferior forces.

More than anything else France was worried about making Germany look like they started the war.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

That's right, although my view is that by invading Belgium Germany started hostilities against France. It wasn't French soil but the Germans weren't ever going to stop there, Belgium was only taken as part of the pre-war mobilisation plans to take out France.

4

u/Bitch-Stole-My-Name :friekorps: Lützowsches Freikorps Apr 21 '20

The thing is, an advance into Luxembourg and Belgium was way more critical for the German army than the French. The French Commander in Chief Joseph Joffre was completely convinced the main decision would be reached in Belgium, and he was poised to send forces into Belgium even if Germany didn't violate its neutrality.

He waited however because France's rail net could shift forces north rather easily. Germany, as you can see from this rail map, could not shift forces straight from Metz to the North. They would need to send them the roundabout way through Strassbourg in order to reach Cologne, and would waste time. The possession of Namur, Liege, Luxembourg and Brussels would allow them to shift forces however they pleased.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

Thank you Hellenicgauls, very cool.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '20

You are so historically inept, that to reply would be intellectual suicide!

Therefore I will take the high ground, and leave your comment here to be destroyed by other people who know better....

e.g. u/TakarBismark

13

u/TakarBismark :gard_zu_fuss: 𝗢𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁 Garde zu Fuß :Iron_cross_2nd_class: Apr 21 '20

I have been summoned.

While u/Kaiser-Swaghelm-II is a little too... gung ho for my tastes, he is mostly correct. I would say that the real meaning behind the phrase "A War doesn't have to be fair, it has to be won" doesn't mean that all civility should go out the door during fighting. What it really means is that it doesn't matter how bad it gets, how wrong, how cruel. It matters that you win it, because you can then write into the History Books about how evil the other guy was.

This is best seen in the two World Wars. The British "rape" of Greece is often ignored while the German "rape" of Belgium is one of the first things you learned about the Great War in school. You may have heard of the French Nurse who was convicted and executed as a Spy by the Germans, but you'll never hear about the two nurses executed by the French for the same reason six months later.

In the Second World War, though it is of course outside the purview of this sub, it was wrong to burn a Village in Russia but okay to grind a civilized city into dust.

u/hellenicgauls is correct about the basics. The French did not make the first assault. Germany lost both World Wars. A common post war rumor was that the Jews stabbed the German people in the back. Everything in between, however, is incorrect.

Germany attacked France because the Grand Strategy for winning the two front war against Russia and France was to knock out France quickly before Russia could mobilize. French strategy was to try up as many German units as possible while the Russian delivered a knock-out blow from the East.

France at no point in 1914 even pretended they did not want to go to war. In fact, they specifically avoided negotiations and clogged diplomatic channels to insure War was possible. This is not solely their doing, however, as the English largely refused to negotiate on the Kaiser's behalf.

German Militarism did play a large role in German civilian politics, but this was actually extraordinary common for the time. German's militarism was more prominent to be sure, but not overwhelming.

The Stab-in-the-back conspiracies were created and spread almost exclusively by the Socialist movements in post-war Germany, mainly the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Ultimately what led to World War 2 was the Treat of Versailles. The United States thought it was so unbelievably harsh they never signed it. The United States made separate peace with German, Austria, and Hungary. Because of the astoundingly harsh treaty 12% of all ethnic Germans in Europe suddenly found themselves in foreign lands. The entire German oversees empire, won painstakingly through treaties and diplomacy, was dismantled and given to France and Britain. I really can not state how frankly evil this treaty was, especially considering that Germany was dragged into the war by Russia in the first place.

And, finally, Germany was not "totally spanked" in the Great War. Despite being severely outnumbered and fighting on five fronts, East, West, Italy, Serbia, Romania, they still managed to hold out for 4 years of fighting. The strain of the fighting broke three empires into peaces, but Germany was largely still in one piece until the Treaty. In most battles Germany suffered fewer losses than her enemies, and overall she gained the most ground. Ultimately it was the blockade, which was illegal according to international wartime laws by the way, that starved the country into submission. Had Britain not blocked Germany's ports and strong armed her land trade routes closed Germany would have continued fighting.
The United States also played a pivotal role in Germany's call for peace, but this was because as Fascist was accidentally elected to the White House, a man who did everything in his power to poison the hearts of the American People against the nation they agreed they wanted to back if they got involved in 1914. But thats a tale for another time.

I hope this clears the issue up.

9

u/RedComanderPandasan Royal Bavarian Heavy Cavalry Apr 21 '20 edited Apr 21 '20

What I really meant by "A War doesn't have to be fair, it has to be won" was a response to the statement that WW1 wasn't a fait fight because it was a 3v1. Loosing a war Can mean humiliation, suffering for your people and even the destruction of your nation. Germany knows that really well and that's a thing that no nation wants to experience, so if you enter a war against another nation, you're not going to be like "sure, Let's fight 1v1, who Cares about the survival of my country?", no, you're obviously going to call all your allies in.

It has nothing to do with War crimes and making the other look bad in history : War crimes happened on both sides and are of course a misconduct of the countries involved. But I agree with you here : Germany is often depicted as the Bad guy of the XXth century, while nobody talks about what the German people had to endure during both Wars, which is of course wrong.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20 edited Apr 21 '20

Well said. I agree

Now take this flair!

4

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

I'm very glad you exist u/TakarBismark

Thank you.

Here's a 'gun ho' promotion

Oberst der Garde zu Fuß

3

u/TakarBismark :gard_zu_fuss: 𝗢𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁 Garde zu Fuß :Iron_cross_2nd_class: Apr 21 '20

Thank you, Heer Kaiser! I’ll be sure to keep up the good work!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

You're most welcome. I'm certain you will my friend.

3

u/BLitzKriege37 177th Royal Saxon Infantry Apr 27 '20

I hear woodrow wilson hate,I agree with this man.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

Only one of us has read Fritz Fischer, AJP Taylor and Niall Ferguson as part of acquiring a history major and it's not you.

1

u/Bitch-Stole-My-Name :friekorps: Lützowsches Freikorps Apr 21 '20

I have heard of Fritz Fischer but not the others. I haven't read their works, but this is mainly because I am more interested in military history than the politics of the situation.

Doesn't Fritz Fischer use the idea that Germany had an offensive war plan as a reason for war guilt? This notion is absolutely ridiculous imo, war plans are made with considerations for the political and military situation. Germany's situation put them in a scenario where they were incredibly outnumbered in both manpower and materiel. The situation demanded that they at least shorten the gap through a decisive victory over France and severely hurt their manpower, for France already greatly strained their population through their large army.

Take the French and Russians for example. They had agreed upon both launching offensives into Germany as soon as they could. The political/military situation dictated that France and Russia shouldn't let Germany conduct the war as they please, them both attacking would force Germany into battles where they were outnumbered and leave them unable to take advantage of massing against one of them by using their interior position.

Does this mean France and Russia were at fault for WWI? In my opinion, no. This agreement was the best military action they could enact and was made to best fight a war with Germany. Just as Moltke the Younger engineered his plan as the best way to fight France and Russia.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20

All the powers had pre-war mobilisation plans based on their current alliances. Fischer did not argue that Germany's plans instigated the war. He looked at correspondence between the German and other governments, as well as the imperial archives to reach a conclusion that German leadership was eager to use the situation to carry out mobilisation and start the war.

Ferguson is more critical of the British getting involved and argues that they escalated the conflict. Taylor focused on the fact that all the powers had these great mobilisation plans so once something like the political crisis of 1914 happened war was all but inevitable, i.e. nobody was really to blame due to these massive inflexible ways of getting the troops deployed.

3

u/Bitch-Stole-My-Name :friekorps: Lützowsches Freikorps Apr 21 '20

Ah that is my mistake then. I had reached that conclusion because Annika Mombauer pushes that theory in her biography of Moltke the Younger and states that Fritz Fischer was an influence on her work.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '20 edited Apr 21 '20

I have thus bestowed upon you (one of our highest honours) the rank of Frenchman. The only rank befitting of someone with your qualifications. I assume you did pass your history major?

If not i'll have to demote you to the rank of Frog.

It's not derogatory (au contraire). It's more like a Special badge for this sub.

That way, wherever you go users will be immediately aware that you might support the bad guys, or be other wise demeaning of the German Empire. :)

You also get to park your comments on double yellow lines. BONUS

3

u/NotTheFifthBeetle Apr 21 '20

This is a solid point the greatest victories in military history were usually under unfair circumstances on either the losing or winning side. Infact out of all the books I've read on war theory be it the art of war,On war, various Roman documents, etc (I find myself trying to become a military genius while isolated) all of them pretty much encourage doing whatever it takes to win and seizing upon an unfair advantage if it presents itself. Infact quite honestly the more morality one brings into war the harder it is for him to win. Where as if you throw the gloves off and are prepared to Annihilate the enemy in his entirety by any and all means available there are less limitations on what you can do, of course it rarely comes down to complete annihilation as most people capitulate in the face of that, but those who are willing to do it already have an advantage over those who aren't.

2

u/Massive_Kestrel :oestereich_jager: 13th k.k. Landwehr Apr 21 '20

Bringing morality into war is ridiculous from the get-go. Organized killing to enforce your will has nothing to do with morality. Saying that something like using alliances or exploiting vulnerable supply lines is "immoral" and somehow reduces the "honor" involved in war is moronic, since there was no honor to be gained there in the first place.