Explain to me how germany wasn't worse than the allies in ww1? They were the only to extensively target civillians...

>you were born just in time to see Germany finally destroyed by their own hubris

You're regurgitating memes.

The poison gas used in WW1 was more humane than being shredded to pieces by shrapnel or a machine gun. It's not like they were using Sarin nerve gas.

I think people just prefer the more rapid death of the machine gun, rather than suffocating

God I hate it when I agree with someone's opinion but then they make terrible arguments.

>Went overboard to humiliate the French in the Franco-Prussian war and then claim to be innocent when France retaliates at the treaty of versilles
This is truthful, the rest of your post not so much however.

>Build a massive fleet that threatens the British homeland for absolutely no reason
Not true at all.

Germany aimed to build a fleet that had 2/3rd the size of the Royal Navy. At no point in history Germany aimed to become an offensive threat to Britain.

>Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State of the German Imperial Naval Office, championed four Fleet Acts between 1898 and 1912 to greatly expand the German High Seas Fleet. The German aim was to build a fleet that would be 2/3 the size of the British navy.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_naval_arms_race

>acts innocent despite wanting to go to war with Russia before it becomes too powerful
If Germany wanted to go to war, how come they had no plans what to do in case of a victory? Literally all German planning in that regard was made in 1915.

>the more rapid death of the machine gun
If you're lucky. There's a greater chance your bone got shattered and if you manage to crawl back to your lines you're gonna lose a limb, or maybe you'll just be left incapacitated out in a shell hole to slowly die over the next week.

Gas attacks being especially inhumane compared to the rest of the horrors of war comes from war propaganda.

That's true. But it's the idea that gets to people, not reality

to be fair

France had it coming

>(((Wikipedia)))

good goy

Hard to say you're the good guy when the your allies immediately start hanging civilians

...

...

...

Just the 19th? They took out the Romans

They're more disciplined and more educated and also believed in higher values.

The rest is propaganda (mutilated Belgian children and the likes)

What an evil germany getting declared war on, building its own navy and standing with its allies

is this an unironic /pol/ humour post

germany started building its navy long before ww1, intentionally hurting relations with the UK, and had no reason to intervene with austria nor invade belgium prematurely
face, Wilhelm was a fucking idiot

>Not true at all
The German navy was pointless, it's took up a 3rd of the military budget and yet the Germans had no need for it. It directly agitated the British who yes still had the biggest navy but could not maintain the two power standard if Germany kept trying to do as you said at 2/3rds ratio to the British. The Germans could have spent that money on better and more army resources perhaps even achieving success on a two front war or at least making the schleffen plan be more rapid achieving a rapid victory and then attacking Russia. But it didn't it deliberately made a huge navy to challenge the British for the sake of challenging the British. Plus the roy
>no plans
The Germans had the schleffen plan which was go through Belgium, quickly knock out France and then re direct to Russia which is slower to mobalize. The reason that there is no tactical plans for Russia is because the Germans had no idea how they would mobalize and figured that being flexible would help them better adapt to the constantly changing Russians. Further more victory plans are formulated during wars and tend to be proportional to the war that was fought. When Germany beat Russia it annexed huge parts of their resources and population ensuring that Russia would never challenge them again.

Found Mr.Magoo.

>It directly agitated the British who yes still had the biggest navy but could not maintain the two power standard if Germany kept trying to do as you said at 2/3rds ratio to the British.
While this is true, one should consider that it is by no means an example of German aggression as their navy was built for defensive purposes and Tirpitz himself formulated that he wanted it to be a defensive deterrent rather than an offensive threat. I would argue that the British demand of having a navy larger than the two largest continental powers seems a lot more "aggressive".

>The Germans had the schleffen plan which was go through Belgium, quickly knock out France and then re direct to Russia which is slower to mobalize.
This is their military plan to fight a war in the west. What I was talking about would be plans for the event of a victory - that which Clausewitz would call the 'purpose' of war. And these plans are not usually made during war. France for example had a very precise idea of what they wanted to do in case of a victory. Germany not so much. They haplessly stumbled into the war and had the Schlieffen plan actually succeeded you'd have seen a dumbfounded Kaiser Wilhelm having absolutely no idea what to do now (and possibly doing something hasty and stupid).

>have oversea colonies
>your main rival is a naval power that is not only well known for its warmongering traditions but also for the fact that it controls one fourth of the world
>building a navy capable of offering even the most token amount of protection for your colonies is somehow wrong

Krauts did a lot of questionable shit but expanding their navy was perfectly understandable thing to do.

>have colonies that were never developped at all and yield absolutely no profit
>start developping large navy thay greatly surpasses even the potential profits these colonies could yield even if they were developped (which they never were)
>get told by everyone it's a bad idea because you're threatening the hegemony of a country that asserts itself through naval power
>do it regardless despite there being no benefit unless you're planning a war
>get completely decimated by said naval power during war anyway
Bismarck retiring was the worst thing to happen to them

The only reason Germany had anything more than a token naval force is because Willy had a deep love for the Royal Navy and wanted ships of his own. Not for any strategic purpose.

Does anyone claim they weren't? When your occupation of a country is termed "the rape of X", it generally means most people aren't on your side.

>They were the only to extensively target civillians
The only reason the Allies couldnt do the same is because their aircraft cant reach Germany and the Germans are fighting on French soil.

Nice resistance fighters. Maybe someone should never have shot someone's heir no?

>gas is more humane than other weapons

>Nice resistance fighters. Maybe someone should never have shot someone's heir no?
Retard.

>inhumane weapons such as gas
It's like you're actually illiterate.

and how did france come to be? :))))))

>hasn't read the thread
>calls others illiterate

KYS friendo

pretty sure it was a king that unified warring lords into a common state

depends on what you mean by "France"

>hasn't read the thread
>calls others illiterate

KYS friendo

modern france

the france chipped away from german kingdoms

>german kingdoms

>german
>kingdoms

WW1 had no good guy or bad guy

The 'gas' you speak of was the brainchild of Admiral Lord Thomas Cochrane of the English Navy. I believe he was planning on using a "stink ship" (basically a gas fire ship) on one of Napoleon's ports during an attack. English then held the plans till WWI.
Source: "Cochrane: The Real Master and Commander" - David Cordingly.

>germany is simultaneously the bad guy and the most important country in europe

What the fuck is an inhumane weapon? Is there such a thing as a humane weapon?

They're the Big Bad.

A watergun

The Ottomans and Belgians both seemed pretty bad.

>back then germany was allied with t*rks
>now they are importing them to europe

What is with krauts and loving to suck T*rk cock?

The germans actually patted themselves on the back and were convinced that this would be a much more ethical warfare then to let someone die slowly from a shrapnel bellywound over hours in a muddy trench noone dares to enter due to bombardement.

>A watergun
What if that shit hits you in the eye?

youtube.com/watch?v=kajCBOv7M6o
XXXIX
Summary
As numerous points of interest have arisen in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
(a) We do not learn from history because
our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years emerges as the average length of national
greatness.
(c) This average has not varied for 3,000
years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
(g) The life histories of great states are
amazingly similar, and are due to internal
factors.
(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are
largely the result of external causes.
(i) History should be taught as the history
of the human race, though of course with
emphasis on the history of the student’s own
country.
people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Kys, britain was literally killing german children with the food blockade

Unrestricted submarine warfare was more than justified

Germany has as much fault in starting ww1 as pretty much anyone else except austria hungary. the austro hungarians were the dumbasses that had some autistic obsession with killing serbians and wanted another conflict with serbia to reduce their size and or make them dependent on AH. Literally every country in europe (including germany) saw zero reason for AH to go to war with serbia over franz's assassination except austria hungary. germany gave them a blank check just to show their support for them, not because they expected a war.

>Germany gave them a blank check because they want war with Russia
fixed

>ger
>man
>king
>doms

No.
It's fucking this. Wilhelm II had a super-hard on for his English relatives and desperately wanted Germany to be like England right down to the naval domination. Wilhelm II was a massive fucking angloboo and would have ate Victoria's necrotic asshole if it made the English people like him more. The dude was unhinged.

Unrestricted submarine warfare was trying to do the exact same thing that England's naval blockade was doing; that is, starve your enemy into surrender. The only difference was that Germany wasn't able to pull it off.

Because "both sides were equally bad" :^)

And suffering horrific casualties means that the cause wasn't justified in the first place. :D

>And suffering horrific casualties means that the cause wasn't justified in the first place. :D

Lets be honest here, out of allied powers only French and Russians suffered horrific casualties, unsurprisingly they&belgians were also the only ones whose cause was perfectly justified.

How were they justified? They literally plunged Europe into war to protected the dignity of some shitty Balkan nation. Not saying Austria and Germany are innocents here - they are as much at fault, but in the end one of the side would have had to let it go. Neither side did, so they all share a responsibility.