The undisputable good guys of WW1.
The undisputable good guys of WW1.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
The undisputable good guys of WW1.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>ww1
>good or bad guys
>started unnecessary war with dubious goals
>good guys
Yes, good guys - Entente, bad guys - Central Powers
>defends Serbian assassins
>good guys
>all the assassins were captured
>Serbia agreed to give Austria those who helped assassins from serbian side (those who Austria itself demanded)
>Serbia agreed on almost every point of the ultimatum, except ONE
>there was system that was created to solve international disputes to avoid wars (which Central Powers ignored)
There was no moral right for A-H and Germany to start a war, but they did it anyway
>to start a war, but they did it anyway
Two reason.
1. French wanted revenge anyway. British never care about Belgium, for sake bigger navy ego.
2. They disobey emperor order: https://www.youtu.be/ZL3vztQGy_Q
you know why the accepted all the ridiciolous demands all aimed at starting the war except for ONE?
Its becasue the serbs too wanted the war knowing daddy russia would bail them out and this gave them deniability later.
Both sides wanted the war and both sides wouldn't have proceeded as they did without reassurance from their respective ally.
Ultimately its unqualified people receiving poor advise making terrible missjudgements and I dont want to sound like a determinist, but even if austria hungary hadn't started the war it probably would have started some other way, in fact we have several at the time more dangerous diplomatic situations before the invasion of serbia that could have started ww1 and it is fair to say that these events not leading to war probably lured some individuals into a false sense of security that could have done something to prevent the catastrophic web of alliances that ultimately caused the world war. Thats not to absolve the dual monarchy of blame for starting it, it is more me pointing out that it takes two to tango.
>you know why the accepted all the ridiciolous demands all aimed at starting the war except for ONE?
>Its becasue the serbs too wanted the war
Not an excuse, even if someone like Black Hand wanted war, official goverment did their part for de-escalation.
>Both sides wanted the war
Definitely not Russia, considering they had nothing to gain from it, and they weren't prepared for it. And France would've never go to war without russian support
>Definitely not Russia, considering they had nothing to gain from it,
Lets go through just some of the major benefits
>weakening Germany,
>eliminating Austria as a rival in the Balkans >gaining control of Constantinople, Thrace and the Straits
the last one being coincidentally what britain promised them to stay in the war in 17, something they had previously moved heaven and earth to prevent, russia gaining a warm water port in and free access to the meditarrenean.
>ot an excuse, even if someone like Black Hand wanted war, official goverment did their part for de-escalation.
you are the one making excuses here, I merely explain the involvement of both sides. The idea that offical goverment and serbian nationalists are somehow completly seperate enteties with no connection whatso ever is premium cope and you wouldnt even have to go past the wikipedia page to disprove it utterly. Again if serbian goverment wanted to descalate and they were willing to accept austrias ridiciolous demand aimed at provoking a refusal there was no reason to stop because of a single point, they knew russia was gonna back them up.
It was always clear that war would be the only way to achieve their balkan ambition, unlike the french they couldn't have anticipated the dimensions this war would take but they were none the less complicent. I am not blaming serbia, austria would have likely found some other technicallity to invade even if they accepted the full demands, my point from the start was and still is that refusing based on a single point of the long list of demands was a deliberate move by serbia nothing more.
>And France would've never go to war without russian support
that is the one statement you made I can agree with, its why they waited for russia to declare war on austria to join in. It was a very calculated move to weaken their biggest rival on top of potentially recovering elsas lorain.
>Lets go through just some of the major benefits
Okay
Germany,
How is this a benefit? Do you Russia wouldn't be weakened after the war? Again Germany was long prepared for war, Russia wasn't
>gaining control of Constantinople, Thrace and the Straits
Ottomans weren't part of the Central Powers at the beginning of the war, so your statement just not true
>The idea that offical goverment and serbian nationalists are somehow completly seperate enteties with no connection whatso ever is premium cope and you wouldnt even have to go past the wikipedia page to disprove it
Yes, I disprove you via wikipedia. Dragutin Dimitrijević leader of the Black Hand was arrested by the goverment and executed on 24 June 1917
>Again if serbian goverment wanted to descalate and they were willing to accept austrias ridiciolous demand
This is in fact premium cope. Serbia don't own shit to Austria (political assassinations happened before and countries held no responsibility for their citizens, and the assassins were Bosnian Serbs) and what they agreed on was more than enough. Austria was the one who decided if there will be a war or not. Statement like "well other side was wanted a war to so it's okay to declare it" have no meaning and purely subjective.
>How is this a benefit?
they are the only threat on russias border, austria hungary deliberately excluded, if you know anything about russian history you know they are extremly keen on securing their border because their giant heartland is not very defensible
>Ottomans weren't part of the Central Powers at the beginning of the war,
It all ties back to the crimean war, which was a major attempt by russia to secure the straits, the war in which austria wasnt an active participant but none the less got bosnia and herzogowina out of it? Great britain and france fought tooth and nail to keep russia out of the mediterranian helping the sick man of europe stick around a little longer. Since then the germans built up strong ties with the ottomans, allying with great britain, france against the last remaining powers that could deny russia this important access point. Hell even if the russians don't get it, eliminating austria means they can become the only major power in the balkans, the claims of the nations there can be used against the ottomans later.
> Dragutin Dimitrijević leader of the Black Hand was arrested by the goverment and executed on 24 June 1917
excuse me but what is it you are disproving? Like this wouldnt be the first extremist group that was used and then discarded, which wasn't even a point I was trying to make. Serbia definetly had connections to these extremist, much the same reason pakistan is arming seperatist groups in its neighbhours. I don't even believe the assassins were sanctioned by belgrade, all I would argue is that serbia was involved in the movement, which is a point seperate to how they responded to the ultimatum. They much like the austrians saw the death of the arch duke as an oportunity.
>Serbia don't own shit to Austria
>Austria was the one who decided if there will be war or not.
thats true, but I wasn't disputing that, Austrias intentions seem clear to you, which is why it surprises me you are in denial about serbias.
>they are the only threat on russias border
It doesn't make war with Germany rational or beneficial. It was beneficial to have friendly relashanship with Germany, and it was like that while Bismark was in power. On the other note, Britian was far greater thread and enemy to Russia, doesn't mean russians would've launch a suicidial war agains the isles
>Since then the germans built up strong ties with the ottomans
Still it wasn't guaranteed that Ottomans will join Germans in any war
>which is why it surprises me you are in denial about serbias
It's all about being proactive. If country doesn't do shit it doesn't matter what they think
>It doesn't make war with Germany rational or beneficial.
agreed
>It was beneficial to have friendly relashanship with Germany, and it was like that while Bismark was in power.
YES
>On the other note, Britian was far greater thread and enemy to Russia
true
however since you bring all of this up I just want you to consider that the exact same logic applies for the german and austrian side, the alliance of three empires as unstable as it was would have been vastly more beneficial. However you always have to keep in mind the people making these decisions are just humans, they have flaws, they make flawed decisions based on imperfect information, part of the great tragedy of ww1 is that so many wanted war but far to few really realized what that actually meant in part because europe hadn't seen this kind of all out warfare between major powers since the napoleonic wars really and warfare had changed since then.
> doesn't mean russians would've launch a suicidial war agains the isles
heading back to the previous argument nobody at least on the highest echelons really grasped the full extend of what they were getting into or you think all of europes rulers would support a cause that would see them often violently deposed, the tsardom of russia, the german empire, austria hungary all its monarchies really cease to be as a result of this conflict. We can look back with near perfect hindsight and determine that this is insane, suicidal, but thats the point we can do that they couldn't and while we can never figure out why they did it for sure as they are just too many moving parts, we can only make assumptions one of them being that they probably asumed they would come out the victor or at least better off as did serbia at the time.
>Still it wasn't guaranteed that Ottomans will join Germans in any war
the idea was more that this conflict would leave them in a better position where they could get it. The war for serbia was expected to be brief, by all sides.
But today Serbia (and Russia) do own a severe punishment.
Okay, take a rifle and go to the frontline, be a man
Nah, I just volunteer on the Spanish Legion
>>all the assassins were captured
Yes, but the conspiracy was much greater than that.
agreed to give Austria those who helped assassins from serbian side (those who Austria itself demanded)
They agreed to give up the ones the Austrians knew about, but they claimed that they didn't know where those guys were. And they refused to give the Austrians the right to investigate and uncover further conspirators.
agreed on almost every point of the ultimatum, except ONE
That's misleading at best. Read the actual reply, they unconditionally accepted only 1 or 2 points.
was system that was created to solve international disputes to avoid wars (which Central Powers ignored)
You mean great power arbitration? The British suggestion that the 4 western great powers (Britain, Germany, France and Italy) would arbitrate was unacceptable from Austrias perspective given that France and Italy were guaranteed to side against her while Britain would probably do so.
>There was no moral right for A-H and Germany to start a war
To attack a nation that harbours terrorists is morally justified, and the war only became a world war because the Russians, and by extension the French, wanted to protect the rogue state of Serbia.
>They agreed to give up the ones the Austrians knew about
And it's only fair
>And they refused to give the Austrians the right to investigate
Austria had no rights to police sovereign nation
>was unacceptable from Austrias perspective given that France and Italy were guaranteed to side against her while Britain would probably do so.
Italy was still part of the Central Powers at this point, Britain was hardly a part of Entente. No excuse for "unacceptable from Austrias perspective"
>To attack a nation that harbours terrorists is morally justified
Meanwhile A-H harboured terrorists like Stalin for example, again shows their moral bankruptcy
>a world war because the Russians, and by extension the French
Neither Russia nor France took any hostile actions against A-H before Germany declared war on half of the world
>Austria had no rights to police sovereign nation
But they needed that right since the sovereign nation in question refused to police itself.
>Italy was still part of the Central Powers at this point
Italy was a signatory of the Triple Alliance, yes, but they still had a quite hostile relationship with Austria-Hungary, the two did not at all keep each others interests in mind.
>Britain was hardly a part of Entente
Britain had no firm commitments, but they very clearly gravitated towards the Entente.
>Meanwhile A-H harboured terrorists like Stalin for example
Stalin did not operate out of Austria-Hungary, he wasn't trained and armed by Austro-Hungarian soldiers, hell, he wasn't even a wanted fugitive during his brief stay in the country.
>Neither Russia nor France took any hostile actions against A-H before Germany declared war on half of the world
Russia mobilized, showing their bellicose intent.
>Stalin did not operate out of Austria-Hungary, hell, he wasn't even a wanted fugitive during his brief stay in the country.
All wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery
>but they still had a quite hostile relationship with Austria-Hungary
That the problem of A-H, not the international law
>Russia mobilized
Russia mobilised because they had no desire to be a victim of the esteemed Schlieffen Plan
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery
This article doesn't mention Austria-Hungary at all other than that one of Stalins accomplices had a forged Austrian passport.
>not the international law
Great power arbitration to settle dispute was not stipulated by treaty, it was just a standard of practice.
>Russia mobilised because they had no desire to be a victim of the esteemed Schlieffen Plan
On July 30 1914, the day the Tsar gave the order for general mobilization, nobody in the entire god damn world outside of the German high command knew about the Schlieffen plan.
Every human having inner demon
>t. boomer
>if it doesn't involve MY side being in the right then the good guy/bad guy dichotomy doesn't apply!
Redditoid opinion. Btw look into the Balfour declaration, which only took a million English men to sacrifice themselves for the sovereignty of Belgium
>sovereignty of Belgium
Better return to Austria crown after Napoleon defeat.
>cum penis poop vagina
Britain sacrificed a million of its men for a piece of land, we all know existed for geopolitical aims, that Germany says they'll only be using as a passageway to France
To die for freedom fries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
>Arthur Balfour
Early zog bootlicker
European israelite =/= ancient Hebrews
/thread
Just another shitty opinion validation thread.
Sorry, forgot pic.
UVGH
Holy kino
How were they the good guys?
Fought Anglos and Russians - the two most evil peoples in world history.
We'd be exploring the stars with qt gfs if the Central Powers won WWI.
They could have won if the Germans did not break their ties with Russians before the war.
And? Russian nobility full of French speaker and Balkan’s chimpanzees homosexualry. Otto knew it.
>Russian nobility full of French speaker
I hope you understand that french was lingua franca
>lingua germania
VGH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachraum
>turks
>good
main mistake for Germany was conducting the Schlieffen Plan
if it had done what Moltke the Elder proposed the strategic situation would've been likely much to the Central Powers' favor
The sclieffen plan was fine. The problem was that Parliament refused Moltke the Younger's request for an approval of financial means for a proportionally equally strong rearmament. Hence the back stab meme after the war
>The sclieffen plan was fine
The whole plan was based on the idea that Russia wouldn't be able to mobilise in time. It was such a ridiculous gamble, that wasn't worth the risk. And since Russia began to mobilise before Germany declared war, the only sane move would've been to back off
There was almost no Soviet Russian troops left to face the Germans by December 1917 given the revolution + civil war. The Germans and Soviets signed a cease fire and they began negotiations in December 1917. Yet the 1 million German troops stayed while they kept insisting with the peace deal.
Trotsky kept delaying the negotiations because he knew the Germans were desperate to get those troops to France. Trotsky declined the deal, and the Germans kinda just started occupying towns and cities with no real opposition
Plan so outdated by time of 1914. Would had work if Sweden-Norway (possibly), Great Britain and Imperial Germany come aid Japan against Franco-Russia and Italy (possibly) on 1905.
>opening the fighting with a sneak attack and no declaration of war
sorry Mehmet, but no matter what else, you were the bad guys
Yes. May they all rest in peace.
Drop Germany and the Ottomans and I'll agree
>drop Germany + ottomans
>you get no good guys
>Escalates a eastern Euro skrimish into a world wide conflict
yeah no
The Entente did that.
No they didn't, but let here you drivel about how they did that
If Russia hadn't intervened it would have only been Austria-Hungary vs Serbia, it's that simple.
>Serbia what about them?
>Germnay bad becuse they made a guarantee to help them in a time of war or crisis? Isn't that what an alliance is? Something everyone ELSE HAD AT THE TIME THE WAR STARTED ESCALATING?
>Yeah, Germany or GERMS as I like to call them are bad and caused WW1 because LULZ told me a bunch of bullshit and now have a German hate boner that totally doesn't cloud my judgement or critical thinking at all!
ETERNAL TURKISH SUBLIME PORTE we lost forever...
vghh holy german austrian bulgarian ottoman empire
During his command in World War I, Pershing rejected British and French demands that American forces be integrated with their armies, essentially as replacement units, and insisted that the AEF would operate as a single unit under his command, although some American divisions fought under British command, notably in the Battle of Hamel and the breaching of the Hindenburg Line at St Quentin Canal, precipitating the final German collapse. Pershing also allowed (at that time segregated) American all-Black units to be integrated with the French Army.