Why did Germany have to be so fucking retarded

>WW1
Central Powers have a very sympathetic cause BUT
>Germany invades neutral Belgium, breaking accepted agreement and now qualifying them as the bad guys no matter what
>Germany engages in unrestricted submarine warfare, justifiably bringing my country into the war

>WW2
Reactionaries have a very sympathetic cause, kicking Marxism in the teeth and developing some nationalism is fine BUT
>Go full jingoistic retard and pick fights with non-Marxist countries
>thoughtlessly declare war on the United States because you allied with a bunch of gooks who attacked Pearl Harbor

i swear to God, they could not do a "right" thing any more wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Aftermath
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Nazis
>Reactionary

Try again

>now qualifying them as the bad guys no matter what
You do know the Entente invaded neutral Greece right?

They were.

T. Neonazi.

eh, they're not as totally reactionary as say Spain or Vichy France, but they basically are.
They have a little bit "and more" going for them, but I'd say they're still qualified as reactionaries.
this i did not, tell me more

>Central Powers have a very sympathetic cause BUT

Literally just A-H screaming autistically and bringing everyone else into a war to honor their alliances, with Germany preemptively starting shit rather than trying to avoid it.

>Reactionaries have a very sympathetic cause.

Germany was in trouble but almost everything they believed about the causes and solutions were wrong. And it's not like they couldn't have known - most of the world was calling them idiots.

>Germany engages in unrestricted submarine warfare, justifiably bringing my country into the war


>"Further research needs to be conducted, but if the discovered ammunition was found in an area where cargo was not known to be stored on board, it strongly supports the argument that the Lusitania was functioning as more than a passenger liner," says Fionnbar Moore, senior archaeologist with the Underwater Archaeology Unit of the Irish Department of Environment, which monitored the dive.

>The bullets are in the hands of Irish authorities, who under maritime law are now responsible for establishing their owner. Further expeditions will search for additional evidence of munitions.

"The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid," says Bemis. "She was a legitimate target for the German submarine."

archive.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

>Germany was in trouble but almost everything they believed about the causes and solutions were wrong. And it's not like they couldn't have known - most of the world was calling them idiots.
and a good deal of them were communists

>Literally just A-H screaming autistically
it took a good deal of aggression to get the ball rolling, but the entente powers were just as guilty as the central ones in terms of starting shit

if the Germans were aware of the Brits using the passenger ship with Americans on it, they should have told the Americans and had public opinion turn against the Brits

they shouldn't have just fucking torpedoed it, that's politically retarded.

>They have a little bit "and more" going for them, but I'd say they're still qualified as reactionaries
With all that social and even genetical engineering? Replacing German nation with some Iranian race? Destruction of traditional society and it's replacement with a totalitarian one?

>Hitler often disparagingly referred to Hindenburg in private as "that old reactionary". Until January 1933

>Central Powers have a very sympathetic cause
>Central Powers
>sympathetic cause
So annexing other countries is a sympathetic cause?

it still harkened back to older times, but with a "moving forward still" vibe

the roman aesthetic, the use of fascism, the ancient germanic symbolism, they clearly wanted a mic of old and new. they were traditionalists clearly.

>Replacing German nation with some Iranian race?
meme extreme, Aryan used to be synonymous with Indo-European

>So annexing other countries is a sympathetic cause?
Brits fucking stealing from the Ottomans ought to make you sympathetic
Invading neutral Greece ought to make you sympathetic
A-H's archduke being murdered is sympathetic

As the OP, I've already made it clear that they are far from dinduing nuffin, but it's not black and white.

>but with a "moving forward still" vibe
Which disqualifies them from being labeled as traditional or reactionary.

>They were traditionalists clearly.
Conservative/traditionalist Germans were represented by people like Hindenburg or Wilhelm II. While the conservatives eventually bowed down to Nazis, it was not without disagreements or insults.

>meme extreme
correct, but the point stands. The whole Aryan meme and obsession with race was a modern thing.

Greece allowed them, joined the Entente in 1917, and got land from Bulgaria.

>Literally just A-H screaming autistically
shut up, dumbass serb

austria was literally the only country in the whole affair with a legit reason for war

But they did
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Aftermath
And the US didn't go to war because of it, or at least not directly

they weren't _only_ traditionalists, what I'm trying to say is that they had a mix of philosophies regarding it, but their hearkening back to older times in certain aspects, along with their anti-progressive/revolutionary stance qualifies them as reactionaries in a way.

it's not so cut-and-dry

>Killing thousands of innocent noncombatents is alright, just as long as we destroy some enemy munitions in the meanwhile.
>Implying that every single ship sailing near Britain was carrying weapons

'The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA marches with quiet, steady step.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.'

brits had no problems killing millions of noncombatants

Germany did three different things really
1)Support AH since its the only ally
2)Be fine with war since 'fuck, we could still win, better strike while we can'
3)Use brinkmanship and threats of war to turn everyone against them

Would the war changed if Spain entered the war with the Central Powers?

I heard that the conservative party of Spain wanted an alliance with Germany, but the King was pro - Entente.

>literally listed as an auxiliary war ship
>travelling through a marked war zone
>not flying any flag
>while transporting ammo

>not a legit target

>stance qualifies them as reactionaries in a way.
They also had some socialist stances, doesn't make them socialists either.

>anti-progressive
You mean progessive as in "ethos of French revolution"? Should it really be given such a monopoly? As for the anti-revolution part, they were quite revolutionary both in rhetorics and actions.

>they weren't _only_ traditionalists, what I'm trying to say is that they had a mix of philosophies regarding
There were "_only_traditionalists" in German society, why should this label be given to Nazis, who deserve it less?

Hitler explicitly mentioned how they were not Marxist Socialists, but just Socialists in the national-cohesion sort of way.

Yes, I've said that they were more than Traditionalist, they were arguably reformers against increasing progressive trends with a Traditionalist flavor, not literal monarchists and *Traditionalists*

This is why the label of reactionary is good for them. They have their origin out of a *reaction* to current affairs, not true conservatives.

Why would they use the term 'reactionary', honestly?

As near as I can tell they're just trying to steal a little bit of the left's aesthetic. They were clearly reactionaries themselves, all their best allies were reactionaries, Marxists called them reactionaries as an insulated, plus there's literally nothing wrong with being a reactionary.

Are they just pretending that the *revolutionaries* were in fact the reactionaries? Kinda dumb.

>The line "Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen" is technically ambiguous. It could either mean Kameraden, die von Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen wurden ("Our comrades who were shot dead by the Red Front and Reactionaries") or Kameraden, welche die Erschießung von Rotfront und Reaktion durchführten ("Our comrades who have shot the Red Front and Reactionaries dead").

>Central Powers have a very sympathetic cause

Back to the drawing board, read some history books, which aren't full of contemporary spirit and bias, maybe start with Caroll Quingly. Germany is the heartland and with northern italia the center of intellectual European history, else there is maybe to a much lesser extend Paris and London. Who controls Germany and it's population controls continental Europe culture wise and power wise. Thinking it wouldn't be the main battleground in Europe is simply a bet against all odds.

>killing amnerican civillsians and then saying "It was a legitimate target" is the same as going to a country saying "Hey, the british are trying to use you as a meat shield!"

The Lusitania wasn't the true reason for the declaration of war, but only a golf of Tonkin incident to have a casus belli.

The simple fact is that Germany was interfering with American trade, and that alone is plenty of reason for the United States to declare war.

This. I'm tired of seeing people act like WW1 was like 2 with objective good guys and bad guys when in reality it was just a massive clusterfuck.

You don't really need a reason for a war, but you need to convince your public of the war, this is the way the leaders think. You are naive, if you think wars are fought because it was morally or lawful. The Americans went to war, because of backroom deals and certain people who offered it to Britain in exchange for a special favor.

>They have their origin out of a *reaction* to current affairs
Not that guy but that's an idiotic and literalist way of using the term. It's entirely misplaced to describe an anti-monarchial genocidal self-described socialist ultranationalist totalitarian ideology with some kooky ideas about religion as reactionary. The party of the reactionaries in Germany at the time was the DNVP.

It's entirely needless to describe the nazis as reactionary.

>Marxists called them reactionaries as an insulated
The communists at the time literally described the social democratic party as "social fascists".
>Are they just pretending that the *revolutionaries* were in fact the reactionaries? Kinda dumb.
Fuck off. Stop getting into discussions on Veeky Forums and pretending to know about subjects that you know 0 about. The text is obviously referring to when nazis were literally shot and killed by the German army in the Beer hall putsch. It was also written by a member of the SA, which was a more revolutionary part of the nazi movement.

The DNVP was succeeded by the NSDAP.
The Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten was incorporated into the Sturmabteilung.
You only reinforce my position of their reactionary status.

Please don't think I've arrived to a conclusion and will never part with it, that I'm just being obtuse.
I can be convinced I'm wrong, I just need to be taught that I am. I remain unconvinced.

They are by no means your typical reactionary, in fact, they have plenty can of revolutionary tendencies.
The best way I would describe them might be reactionary revolutionaries.

>Nazi's had a sympathetic cause
When you said WW1 Germany had a sympathetic cause I thought you were just stupid, but you're either trolling or need to go back to /pol/.
Sage

>Being anti-Marxist is unsympathetic

>Willy in WW
>Anti-Marxist

I guess user was incorrect, you are stupid.

>Germany invades neutral Belgium, breaking accepted agreement and now qualifying them as the bad guys no matter what
Germany believed they were incapable of winning a two-fronts war against France and Russia so invading through Belgium was seen as the only way to win. Why would you care about neutrality of a country when human lives are at stake? If you're going to fight a war you might as well do it the best way you can or not fight at all.

>Germany engages in unrestricted submarine warfare, justifiably bringing my country into the war
Same argument as above.

>thoughtlessly declare war on the United States because you allied with a bunch of gooks who attacked Pearl Harbor
The US have been supplying the enemies of Germany from the very beginning. The US were already an enemy of Germany, with or without declaration of war.

You do realize the nazi's started WW2 by invading Poland not the Soviet-union right?

You replied to the OP, and in it I clearly said
Reactionaries have a very sympathetic cause, kicking Marxism in the teeth and developing some nationalism is fine BUT
>Go full jingoistic retard and pick fights with non-Marxist countries

You are mentioning the WHOLE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD

We're not talking about Willy, we're talking about the NSDAP origins

>The DNVP was succeeded by the NSDAP.
Funny way of saying that the DNVP was forced into dissolving (as were the other parties around the same time) and partially incorporated but largely marginalised by the NSDAP. Though some members were undeniably brought under the nazi wing, but to say that the NSDAP succeeded the DNVP is inaccurate. The DNVP was certainly not a purely reactionary party either though, especially towards the end under more populist leadership in Hugenberg. Stupidity and desperation had more to do with the DNVP's cooperation with the nazis than legitimate like-mindedness. The NSDAP also notably made changes, promises and compromises with its ideology to appeal to the right-wing at the time, attacking the more radical and left-wing parts of the party through the night of the long knives and promises of free trade to industrialists. And a lot of them were reasonably disappointed when the nazis turned out difficult or impossible to control and took the country in more radical directions as the regime went on, with things like the four year plan (sound familiar?) economically and increasing repression socially.

>reactionary revolutionaries.
wew
>tfw no longer a neet who can stay up all night engaging in dumb arguments on Veeky Forums
Anyway good night user

You know the Nazis had their origin in fighting the Roter Frontkämpferbund, right?

>Germany invades neutral Belgium, breaking accepted agreement and now qualifying them as the bad guys no matter what

annexing parts of Belgium was one of the reasons for the war

>Germany engages in unrestricted submarine warfare, justifiably bringing my country into the war

The stubborn annexionism angered Wilson much more than sunk civil liners carrying ammo

>Go full jingoistic retard and pick fights with non-Marxist countries

It was not about Marxism, it had been defeated in Germany at that time.

>thoughtlessly declare war on the United States because you allied with a bunch of gooks who attacked Pearl Harbor

at that time they were in a state of undeclared war already.

Ok m8, I'd deliver my counterargument, but I've got to go to work in about an hour myself, I'll mull over your arguments though.

>that image
Did you post it just because it's cool, or because you're a Texan/San Antonian?
Because I am.

Because it's cool.

Which had nothing to do with the start of ww2

Then see

You clearly have no idea what Nazism actually is, so please stop. I don't see how one can interpret racial anarchism as being reactionary. You do realize that they were allies with marxist until the moment they stabbed them in the back right?

>with Germany preemptively starting shit rather than trying to avoid it.

They told the UK ahead of time about their fleet movement promising them that they would get rid of their dreadnoughts after the war if they did not intervene in the war. It was the perfidious Albion that escalated the conflict to a world war in a vain attempt to expand the empire.

>most of the world was calling them idiots.

You're joking right? People were praising them for presenting an alternative future to the world that was no either capitalism or marxism. The Kennedy family including JFK publicly praised them as did several American heroes like Charles Lindbergh. Even many communist refrained from criticizing them because Stalin told them to. The only ones really criticizing them were hard core communist and Trotskyist.

except their cause was far greater than "kicking Marxism in the teeth and developing some nationalism."

Stop being an absolutist retard

>Greece allowed them
Hardly since it sparked a civil war

I'd say A-H is to blame for starting the war while the entente didn't help to stop it, I remember Germany even tried to reach a white peace at some point
>going to war with a nation thanks to the actions of a single individual/organization

wehrboos and /pol/beards literally chalk up german retardation as "it was actually genius, the jews make it look bad!"

Because declaring war on the US when you're still fighting UK and currently retreating from Moscow napoleon-style was such a great idea

The real villain

>It was the perfidious Albion that escalated the conflict to a world war in a vain attempt to expand the empire
How are you this fucking dumb? I'm not kidding, where do you manage to get this kind of anti-education?

Add this one to WWII
>Reach Ukraine.
>Smiling people greet you and are happy that Commie is remove.
>"Hans, we enjoy a lot of local support from these people."
>"Let's go kill them."

the black hand was a terrorist organization funded by the serb government

>On 13 July, Austrian investigators into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand reported to Count Berchtold that:
>"There is nothing to prove or even to suppose that the Serbian government is accessory to the inducement for the crime, its preparations, or the furnishing of weapons. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that this altogether out of the question."[73]
>This report depressed Berchtold as it meant there was little evidence to support his pretext of Serbian government involvement in Franz Ferdinand's assassination.[73]