What is the rest of Veeky Forums opinion on the no real presence of a "good and evil" during the First World War that...

if you want to get into the good-bad rhetoric, which is stupid in the first place when talking about history, then ww1 most certainly has that as well and there is no doubt the central powers are on the "bad" side

they were the ones who actively pursued and escalated a war of aggression and they were the ones whose conduct during the war was just atrocious (literally) in places like eastern europe or belgium

>WW2

The Soviets invaded and occupied a large chunk of Europe, killing and enslaving millions in the process.
The Allies destroyed entire cities with conventional bombs, firebombs, and atomic bombs.
After the war, more than 10 million ethnic Germans have been deported from their homes in Middle Europe.

>American Civil War?

Sherman's March.

Also, the South kept lynching blacks regardless, while the North forcibly segregated them. The conditions of the jobs they could get into were not much better than slavery.

He does have a dashing mustache.

You're not wrong, I was just thinking of the motivations of the two sides rather than their actions. If you go by actions, then picking a good team and bad team is generally impossible.

This assuming that the Nazis motives were
'kill everyone'

and the Soviet/Allied motives was 'stop that'

Debatable.

Well memed.

Yes the country that defended itself from German invasion is just as bad for doing so as the country that single handedly escalated a minor conflict between Austria and Russia into a world war, invaded neutral Belgium, mass executed thousands of innocent civilians, introduced chemical weapons and flamethrowers into the war, destroyed priceless ancient artefacts and buildings just for the hell of it, and broke every international convention in existence, all based on the belief that it deserved to take land from its neighbours due to its racial superiority.

Fucking germboo /pol/tards.

Represent the interests of both sides.
Holocaust and slavery should be their own lessons related to the topics.

Even the Germans in WW2 weren't as much in the wrong as they were in WW1.

And the motivation of the CSA was independence and self-determination, exactly the same as the USA in its war against Britain.

>the largest land army in the world is mobilizing against your only ally
>expected to do nothing

Invading a neutral country is not an acceptable "something."

Greece? Soviet Russia? Hungary after the armstice was signed?

>Austria is picking a fight with Russia
>of course the only appropriate response for Germany is to invade Belgium and France

Why is most of Latin America more hung in general than Spain or Portugal despite all the similarities? Were the natives all Big Guys or something?

In Britain WW1 is taught with no particular blame on anyone, though if you do look at it objectively Germany has more blame than others.

>Serb terrorist group assasinates heir to the throne
>Serbia denies responsibility
>Russia is encouraging Serbia and mobilizing
>France is Russia's No.1. ally

Do you actually think if the Germans attacked Russia first, the French would have stood still?

sherman's march was extremely tame desu

this

I dont think so, Britain wanted the war and had been preparing for over a decade

I was always taught in school that the main cause was nationalism and militarism - mostly on the French part.

>tfw you will never see a genuine retelling of WW2 from the German side or the Russian side
>tfw both always seem to fall on lazy cliches of collectivist Russians with no self-identity or awareness dying in droves for Communism and evil conniving Germans who are all psychopaths and shoot people for fun

I think France was still le sad from the Franco-Prussian war

What country did you go to school in?

Yeah better preemptively genocide some Belgians.

Read the diplomatic cables, France was the one country trying its best to deescalate the situation. But Germany wasn't going to pass up this opportunity for war.

NZ

>I think France was still le sad from the Franco-Prussian war

It's called "Revanchism", moron

>Yeah better preemptively genocide some Belgians.

Well practice makes perfect

being sad for ones loss and revanchism aren't mutually exclusive bud

Disgusting, I thought only France and Germany had this level of anti-French delusion.

probably

Reminder that French revanchism is a meme, there was a small revanchist party but it was always a minority and never played a role in government.

It's unfortunate, personally I like France and it's history, but most of my country think otherwise.

>genocide

You keep using that word.

>genocide

>the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation

Seems legit

And just how large was that group of Belgians who were killed deliberately?

>6,000 Belgians were directly killed, 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, in prison or sentenced to death by court.

I don't really know where to draw the line in terms of what genocide is, but still notably bad.

yes but genocide would mean that they were killed because they were Belgian , when in fact Germany invaded Belgium simply because it was the best way to defeat France

I thought that too, but

>the deliberate killing of a large group of people

I think that what genocide means has always been debated

my point is that the goal of Germany was not to kill Belgian people , it was to get to France , so if the Belgians had not shown resistance (and i am not taking sides just trying to make a point ) the Germans would just pass through .

This is a terrible post.

Fair enough

they're good aren't they?

something about those fingers...

Big Lies more like. Do they even measure to get this data or just take their ord for it?

It started mainly with WW2 because there was a clear evil side in that one.

Damn, you're such an imbecile...

>What's also slightly annoying is that many history classes at the high school level fail to outline this unique situation and protray the War as Germans = bad America/Britain = good

That's not an unique situation, dumb murifat
Very few wars have "good vs evil" (and even for those that do, it's relative).
Also, what school fails the most to is the teach people that Germany, while not "evil", was indeed the country that caused this word war

In Belgian high schools we are thought that WWI was the inevitable result of an orgy of nationalism, capitalism and alliances. Mostly focusing on the horror and misery during the war.

Only after mastering in history it became clear that this interpretation was nonsense. The war was in fact the fault of German. Of all parties involved they were in fact the worst bastards. And lastly the people of any side involved were nationalist in a religious manner which we modern humans simply can't even begin to comprehend.

Oh, and the generals did nothing wrong.

>hat's also slightly annoying is that many history classes at the high school level fail to outline this unique situation and portray the War as Germans = bad America/Britain = good

Where I went to school we were taught all this BS about it being morally grey and really it was everyone's fault and muh imperialism muh capitalism and so forth. It was only when I went I got more educated in college that I learned that it was clearly the Central Powers' fault.

Say what you will about the Krauts, their propaganda game is strong.

>WWII
>American revolution
>Great Northern War
>Winter War
>Crusades

Have you read the Serbian response to the ultimatum?

Unless you are not a moral relativist.

>Say what you will about the Krauts, their propaganda game is strong.
only as strong as the absolutely cuck-tier willingness of the allied powers to accept it - starting with keynes immediately postwar, followed by the realpolitik spinelessness of the feel-good-germany-dindu-nuffin-dey-gud-NATO-bois-now after ww2

>that single handedly escalated a minor conflict between Austria and Russia into a world war

Wat?

>all based on the belief that it deserved to take land from its neighbours due to its racial superiority.

That never happened you stupid shitstain. It was France's and Russias fault. Hell, even Britain is arguably more guilty.

>France was the one country trying its best to deescalate the situation

How the fuck do you lie like that?

>It was France's and Russias fault. Hell, even Britain is arguably more guilty.
ayyyyyyyy

>It was only when I went I got more educated in college that I learned that it was clearly the Central Powers' fault.

What did they do? Britain and France clearly wanted to fuck up Germany. Germany wanted some colonies and a big fleet to keep up with the Anglofrancses.

>France and Poincare wanting to avenge 1871 (a war THEY started over a fucking LETTER, with people taking to the streets and asking for said war)

>Russia interfering over a small regional affair, even though they knew it would lead to European war

>Britain being terrified that Germany was getting ABLE (not planning to but merely being ABLE) to give them a good scrap in a war

Britain should've ignored the Germans and eat popcorn while Germans and French kill each other. They should've allied with Germany.

Germany was quickly becoming an economic competitor to Britain in the years leading up to WWI, it wasn't in Britain's national interest to ally with them.

Fighting Germany REKT Britain. Germany is arguably more powerful than UK now. Germans didn't leave EU to escape British influence it was vice versa.

Meanwhile in reality

>France withdraw its troops 10kms away from the border to avoid provoking Germany
>Germans use this to raid a French village
>France still doesnt declare war on Germany after that

You can't say France didnt do its outmost to avoid the war

why do you lie on the internet

Every side was preparing for a war

Crazy to think a century ago Germans were preparing for war and now the only thing they prep is the bull

I don't like that definition. It makes caters down in Mexico genocidal.

>genocide

>the deliberate killing of a specific group of people justified by an ideology, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation

caters? Auto correct.
cartels*

>Fighting Germany REKT Britain
remember everyone thought the war would be a quick skirmish through the lines and hey ho its christmas and Pierre/Tommy/Jerry/Ivan would be on the run with his tail between his legs

everyone wanted a fight. no one wanted THAT fight

>ww2
2 words. Soviet Union.

>American Revolution
Atrocities commited to captured British Troops, British freed american slaves who joined them.

>great northern war
Don't know enough to comment

>winter war
Agreed, but the soviet troops themselves weren't bad guys

>Crusades
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

Britain wasn't growing as fast as Germany. It was inevitable.

Generation war is a pretty good mini series based on the German side. It's a tad cheesy at times but over all it's very well done . It's on Netflix too

youtube.com/watch?v=M_JVaMuZZBQ

Can't really say you were the good side when you had motherfucking Stalin on your team now can you? The Americans and British did their fair share of heinous shit too, sure nowhere near the degree done by the Axis, but still.

Whatever fag, you norms will never understand the plight of the neurodiverese mind

The great northern war? I mean sure it was a dick move to try and take a shot at Sweden since Charles was still young (if only they knew what he would turn into) but that was par for the course back then. Denmark wanted to asset it's crown on norway and Russia wanted ingermanland and to curb Swedish power.

Nothign seems as morally degradable like the civil war or world war 2.