Invents communism, millions of people die

>Nothing 'pop' about that because it's true.
Start shit, get hit. The reparations were far less than the damage they did to the french and belgian economies

You want to talk about how much damage Napoleon wrought on pretty much every economy in Europe? That doesn't mean we should have split up France, and dump reparations on them that they couldn't possibly have payed

>>implying the French aren't the good guys of the world wars
You're thinking of the Serbs.
>>implying the French aren't the first line of defense against the vile Teutonic hordes
Some 'line' lmao

>muh black book of gommunizm
>ACTUALLY using parantheses
fuck off /pol/

>dump reparations on them that they couldn't possibly have payed
The reparations were eminently payable, if the G*rmans hadn't deliberately torpedoed their own economy in order to plead poverty. Versailles was too lenient and too poorly-enforced.

>Loses two world wars
>Ends up in charge of Europe anyway

How do they keep getting away with it?

>Nothing 'pop' about that because it's true.
Less harsh than the Treaty Of Paris in 1871 and the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk.

Or is Germany the only one who can dictate extremely one-sided peace treaties?

>The reparations were eminently payable
Retarded Frogs literally asked for more money than Germany had. Not really payable. Not when the Germans didn't even start the fucking war.

Also very original thread OP

>Retarded Frogs literally asked for more money than Germany had.
Yes. That's why you had until 1989 to pay it. Did you think they wanted the entire amount the week after the treaty was signed or something?

>Not when the Germans didn't even start the fucking war.

Except France did have to pay reparations in 1815, which were far larger as a proportion of their economy than those Germany had to pay in 1919. And they ended up paying them off ahead of time.

>tfw hated germans before it was cool but have to like them now to be contrarian

>claims he hasn't heard of the meme that the Germans in WWI were good boys who dindu nuffin
>then literally spouts that same meme saying the germs didn't start the war
Wew lad

The French were the bad guys in WW1. They played with fire, got burned and had to be saved by the valiant British and American troops. In WW2 they were victims but also cowards who ended up having to be saved by Brits and Americans again.

>played with fire
>withdrew their troops 10 kilometres from the German frontier as a sign of their peaceful intentions
Pick one and only one

>Germany isn't to blame for WW2 in Europe

Fucking Wehraboos. Who the fuck IS to blame for Germany declaring war on and eating all of its neighbors, then? The perfidious Swiss?

>b-b-but France and Britain declared war on Germany hitler a gud boy he dindu nuffin
Yeah, in response to his invasion of Poland, after they guaranteed Polish independence. And that doesn't explain why Germany attacked Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium or Poland. OR why they went back on the Treaty of Munich in less than a fucking year.

If they had peaceful intentions they would have declared themselves neutral. If you decide to keep posing a threat you shouldn't be surprised if you get hit.

Yeah, those peaceful intentions and that declaration of neutrality sure helped Belgium.

What were they doing to "pose a threat"? Existing?

Im not even going to bother explaining it to you, you empty headed little cunt

>gets BTFO
>"y-you're too dumb to know the REAL reason"

Go ahead, little shitposter. Explain to the board how Germany is not responsible for invading 80% of Europe. Remember, this is the history board, not whichever echo chamber you come from.

Go on. We're waiting.

Someone's butthurt. It's okay Fritz, keep blaming the Jews for your autism.

The early 20th century can basically be summed up with in 3 points.

>Germany declares war/invades a weaker nation
>Gets blown the fuck out when other nations team up to put an end to their autistic rage
>Cries and blames the allies for being nasty and not letting them do whatever the fuck they want

Wehraboos are cancer.

You are literally memeing. Go read The Myths of Reparations by Sally Marks.

When wehraboos die out can we have normal threads about German history again. I'd like for Veeky Forums to stop being a real life WWI Propaganda cartoon.

Im not defending Imperial German or Nazi war crimes, I feel like I need to say that, I just want to discuss them more than going "well what do you expect"

>Invents communism.
>Religious bigotry
>And colonialism
>Millions of millions of people die
>Creates third world countries and worldwide poverty.

from the reunification of the Reich, the British and French powers did everything to destroy the Bismarckian balance of the continent.The Germans were no longer divided into 38 bullshit wanabe kingdoms states and had everything they could ask for, wanting a war and risking unmaking everything would be utterly retarded. No one wanted peace more than them, even French historians admitted this fact. As for the brits they were butthurt about a new global power being more efficient than they were in pretty much everything (except being a faggot I'll give you that), and the French who basically fucked themselves up the ass in 1871 needed to antagonize a neighbor in order to channelize radical opposition energies. (anarchists, marxists, napoleonfags..) Hell fucking education was made mandatory in order to tell children every day that german=evil rapist. Every single move made by french foreign diplomacy had the purpose to trigger Wilhelm II into attacking, Tanger's crisis, making the Tsarist Christian Russian Empire a close friend of a king slaying Republic all of a sudden in order to heat things even more with Austria and Balkans. As for the Second World War, let me remind you that south Denmark and Poland used to be Prussians, germans still lived there, hell Kant's house is in fucking Poland now. I do not support any principle of the Nazi ideology nor the crimes made during that conflict, but you niggers had it coming with this versaille treaty that even burgers deemed as bullshit.

>bbbut ur a poltard waffen ss idolizing cuck xd meme.jpg

Just open a fucking book you hobos.

>No one wanted peace more than them
In 1871, maybe. In 1914, not at all.

Revanchism is a meme after the 1890s BTW.

>let me remind you that south Denmark and Poland used to be Prussians, germans still lived there
The border with Denmark was literally decided by a plebiscite, with the Danish-speaking areas going to Denmark and the Germans ones to Germany. The areas Poland gained by Versailles were majority Polish as well (and there was even some majority Polish territory left with Germany too). After WWII, you're right, but that's what you get when you use ethnic Germans in other countries as an excuse to start the largest war the world has ever seen and genocide millions.

>Just open a fucking book you hobos
No u. And a real academic history, not a high school textbook or a coffee table book

German history is very interesting, but you can only discuss it intelligently when everyone accepts the basic facts. Obviously Germans didn't just start the world wars because "lel they're autistic barbarian Huns lel", but in order to have an actual discussion about why the Germans did what they did everyone first has to admit that they actually did these things.

>Steamroll a neutral Belgium to get to France
>France wouldn't have been attacked if they declared themselves neutral!

wew

Maybe if you hadn't used ethnic Germans as an excuse to invade Eastern Europe you wouldn't have seen all of them forcibly removed to prevent that from ever happening again.

Not declaring themselves neutral. If you have no intention to attack you could declare yourself neutral.

Who were Allies of France.

>No one wanted peace more than them
how do you explain the war council of 1912 then

Are you aware that to be assured of their neutrality you speak of, the Germans demanded the French just hand over border defenses and towns?

"Either you give the forts you built because you were afraid of a German invasion... or there will be a German invasion!" Top cuck diplomacy.

He meant to say that the Bolsheviks have only succeeded because of German financial and logistical support, which is undoubted true.

Versailles was earned, they're the first to unleash nerve gas, they've decimated Eastern France, raped at least 40.000 ethnic French women and are also responsible for the success of the Bolshevik revolution.

Because the European Reparation Program made them into what they are today, plus Western Germany was used as a buffer state against the East, it was in the interest of everyone for Germany to be powerful.

But they've caused most of the damage, which they've regretted rather grievously in the end.

"Balance"? The unified German state was arguably the greatest source of instability in early 20th century history.

>Serbs good guys
Yeah sure, assasinating the only anti-war Austrian and thereby starting the war was the greatest of fucking plans

Belgium wasn't an ally of France in 1914, it was was officially neutral, you ignoramus

Franz Ferdinand was not the only anti-war Austrian, he wasn't at all influential, his assassination was just a pretext which no one actually cared about, and the Serbian government probably wasn't aware of the assassination plans, though elements within it did aid the assassins.

Anyway, Serbia accepted almost all of Austria's demands, including those like censoring anti-Hapsburg publications which would have required an amendment to the Serbian constitution. The only one they didn't accept was allowing Austrian police to investigate the assassination on Serbian soil, a blatant violation of Serbian sovereignty. Basically everyone agreed the Serbian stance was reasonable, even Wilhelm II wrote:
>a brilliant performance for a time-limit of only 48 hours. This is more than one could have expected! A great moral success for Vienna; but with it every reason for war drops away...
Unfortunately, the Austrian and German military commands were dead set on war, so it didn't matter.

shut the fuck up you fucking faggots, how come ruski piece of shits got away with wrecking havoc in the balkans and proactively supporting those slavic terrorist societies, making Austria's options more and restricted around a forced belligerence in its diplomatic stances. There were countless attempts of giving these apes a fair share of influence in the region but tsars being the niggers they were ALWAYS stirred shit up with their unrealistic claims and made every progress towards stability a failure. Bismarck actually kept the cykas away with his alliance treaty aiming to ensure peace between the both country and make a war impossible with anglo frog shits and even put a brake to their economy by blocking russian values at Börse Berlin in order to inhibit military capacities thus risks of conflicts. But what did the French do ? Lend them a shitload of money they were most likely to never get back again, just to put the flame even closer to the gunpowder. Bismarck's Europe while not satisfying everyone was a better example of stability than your "peace you give me half your land and deliver a shitload of coal to me everyday for free fuck you I win because burgers heard my cries and came to save me in a in 8vs1 war"

>no u wrong im rite german is bad becuz hitler

France had no interest in declaring themselves neutral because Poincaré essentially handed Russia a carte blanche, declaring that they would honour their alliances in any case - something which Germany is commonly blamed for in regards to their assurance towards Austria.

Official status matters little when it comes to war.

No arguments, just autistic rage. Try again.

Not the guy you're talking to, but he's right, you know?

The idea that Germany was at fault for WW1 is long outdated.

Poincaré was the President at this time, which in the Third Republic was essentially a ceremonial post with as much power as the Queen of England has today. If you can't even get basic facts about who the leaders of the countries were, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

The Prime Minister ie. the actual leader, René Viviani said this to the Russians:
>in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany the pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces
Doesn't sound like a carte blanche to me.

>Official status matters little when it comes to war.
So what is your argument, that Belgium would have declared war on Germany? Because that is just laughable.

And if official status doesn't matter, then why the fixation of France declaring itself neutral or not?

It is the majority view among academic historians today. Look up the Fischer thesis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Fischer#Criticisms

>Many critics claim that Fischer placed Germany outside the proper historical context. They argue that Germany was not uniquely aggressive amongst European nations of the early 20th century, a time when Social Darwinianian views of struggle were popular in Europe's ruling classes. Critics also contend that in the centuries following Columbus's voyages to America, the Western European countries including Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc. had already acquired vast overseas colonial possessions and spheres of influence long before German unification in 1871, so it is difficult to single out Germany alone as "grasping for world power" when this was a centuries-old European tradition. It was not until after World War II that many European colonial subjects finally won their independence. Even after the conclusion on the Second World War, France refused to relinquish control over Indochina.

>Moreover, Fischer's timetable has also been criticized as inaccurate. Hollweg's Septemberprogramm, outlining German war aims, was not produced until after the war had begun and was still going well for Germany. At the same time, other powers had been harboring similarly grandiose plans for post-war territorial gains.[15][16][17][18][19] Since its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870), France was committed to a path of revenge against Germany and the reacquisition of Alsace and Lorraine. Russia, too, had long-standing, explicit war aims.[20] In addition, Fischer neglects the fact that the great powers of Europe were divided into two hostile military alliances of mutual assistance that would invariably result in a general European war should hostilities break out between members of opposing alliances. Fischer further neglects to address the nationalist aspirations of the subject peoples of the multinational Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires. After all, it is usually agreed upon by most historians that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the main event responsible for the sparking of the chain of events which would lead to the outbreak of war in 1914.

>block quoting wikipedia
kek

There are plenty of citations in there. The point is that it's outdated and you can find plenty of people who disagree with Fischer's interpretation of the events, or even pointed out direct flaws, e.g. in his timetable.

No arguments, just autistic rage. Try again.

Notice how the only things sourced in those paragraphs are obvious shit like "Russia had war aims" or "other countries had post-war plans", but the actual controversial statements like:
>Since its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870), France was committed to a path of revenge against Germany and the reacquisition of Alsace and Lorraine
>n addition, Fischer neglects the fact that the great powers of Europe were divided into two hostile military alliances of mutual assistance that would invariably result in a general European war should hostilities break out between members of opposing alliances
>Fischer further neglects to address the nationalist aspirations of the subject peoples of the multinational Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian empires
>After all, it is usually agreed upon by most historians that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the main event responsible for the sparking of the chain of events which would lead to the outbreak of war in 1914
Have no citations in support of them. This is why wikipedia isn't a credible source. Because if you read Fischer's book, he clearly does not "neglect" the existence of alliance systems, or national aspirations, or the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. And the stuff about other countries having colonies is just a non sequitur, because Fischer isn't taking about overseas imperialism.