What do you think of Wonder Woman's portrayal of General Erich Ludendorff?

I liked the trench scene.

With inflated egos, they decided to declare war against the whole world. The Germans fought this war quite seriously, exterminating anyone in their path and using all sorts of underhanded tricks. They were dead-set on world domination.

But the rest of the world wasn't taking it so seriously. They could have easily exterminated the Germans, had they stooped half as low as them. But, as humanists, they didn't want to deprive future generations from observing one of nature's most hilarious mistakes. Trenches were built along a general area. Within, all the territory was declared a German reservation. Where Germans could upkeep their unique customs and "culture".

The German "war machine" was dead in its tracks. Infuriated and with no way to show the relevance of their "war machine", they committed dastardly actions (that became a German tradition). They hurt defenseless people. They aimed their weapons at civilians.

Trying to establish a German hegemony over Central Europe by forcing puppet princes onto the thrones of the various Baltic states and Poland and bullying de jure independent states like Ukraine into giving up its grain harvests to the point of local starvation with the end goal of gradual extermination of the non-German peoples living in this region and their usurpation by German colonists.

How were these people any different to the Nazis again? Because they were okay with Jews?

Britain and France did the same to literally half the world

Well that explains why Jewish Hollywood singled him out.

>t-they did it too

Both suffered greatly for their empires to the point of their inevitable collapse. You realize those colonial possessions you cite were a driving factor in Germany's decision to go to war in the first place? What did you think was going to happen if German victory was on the Western front? They can't take that much on the Continent.

Both times those vast empires led to world wars and both times both empires paid the price for that imperialism in the blood of their youngest trying to fight back another nation's.

Some even received the Honour Cross, and as one said during WW2, "I was German enough for the Kaiser"

>Didn't german army in WW1 had a lot of jews
The guy who invented and implemented poisonous gasses that Germans used in WW1 was a Jew.

He's a Junker. No depiction could have been enough of an asshole.

> "I was German enough to obtain special dispensation such as the removal of the requirement of Christian faith for public service. I mean for the Kaiser"

I'm saying Britain and France were no better or more moral than Germany, they were even worse in how the treated people they invaded

>"get addicted to opium or we'll invade you!"

WW1 made heroes out of a lot of people Germany would've never considered previously.

>Didn't german army in WW1 had a lot of jews?
That explains why they lost.

The Germans and the Austro-Hungarian Empire had eastern Europe all sorted out in 1918 and it's a pity they had to leave before they could finish the job due to the collapse of the western front. There was going to be a Ukrainian kingdom with a Habsburg on the throne. A Polish kingdom. Baltic monarchies and an independent Finland. Most of these nations got their definitive independence only after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Russia itself was in chaos due to revolution and civil war but a Germany triumphant in Europe would prevent the emergence of a lethal Soviet Union. The Jews of eastern Europe were pro-German and they would have been spared the horrors of the Holocaust in an imperial Europe. Various ethnic tensions, especially between the Poles and the Ukrainians, would have remained but they would be adjudicated much more effectively and not be as bloody as were in the post-Versailles system. Eastern Europe suffered horribly after WW! and in many ways still does and its a shame France couldn't be defeated quickly to spare the rest of us all the horrors and the bother.

But in Germany's opinion they never lost, in battle anyway. That was the whole point of the "stab in the back" theory.

It's shit, that's all

edgy.

Over 12,000 Jewish soldiers fought and died for Germany on the front lines.

You have no proof that France would have invaded Belgium, there was no need, they were tangentially allied through Britain and French forces were concentrated along the Franco-German border. The second-empire had fallen and Germany was a problem, not a partner for the French. Don't pretend the politics of 1848 or 1868 apply to the first world war.

Russia only mobilized after Austria occupied Serbia and continued to do so despite warnings from Russia. In no small part because the Germans told the Austrians they would support them in any war effort.

War provides many instances for opportunism as I have been hammered with numerous times when discussing the second world war.

Complete nonsense.

Ludendorff was NOT a Juncker, which is an essential part in understanding his character, since he was a bourgeois officer in a corps that was still dominated by Junckers (i.e. the Prussian gentry). That's why constantly felt the pressure to outperform everyone around him to justify him being in the position he was.

The stab-in-the-back myth never made sense anyway. Yes Germany surrendered when their troops were still in French soil and really the Germany homeland had never been invaded, but what did they think was going to happen? Their allies had been essentially destroyed, famines were happening on the homefront due to extreme rationing, and the Allies were now being revitalized by the USA bringing in not only supplies but 30,000 fresh soldiers a month.

Best case scenario, the Germans could have dug in purely defensively and their army could've lasted via attrition until 1919, 1920 maybe. There were many opportunities where the Germans could in fact have won the war, but at this point they were just drawing out their inevitable defeat.

Not the guy you're talking to but Germany had every right in the world to declare war on Russia and invading Belgium was a perfectly reasonable decision. There is nothing inherently "evil" about any of this.

>The stab-in-the-back myth never made sense anyway.
>Post-successful Bolshevik Revolution Russia not encouraging socialists and communists in Germany to use the weakened state of Germany to enact a revolution.

>and invading Belgium was a perfectly reasonable decision

In terms of tactics yes. The issue was their treatment of the Belgians (executing entire towns for the actions of one person as they were big on collective punishment), and more importantly ignoring Belgium's legal neutrality, basically saying that "it's just a piece of paper". Yes but it's a piece of paper that was internationally agreed upon and guaranteed by the British. Them attacking Belgium drew Britain into the war, because prior to the invasion the British Parliament was still undecided as whether or not to get involved. They could ignore France's pleas, their agreement with France was basically a handshake, and handshake agreements have wiggle room. Their protection of Belgium was a written treaty, that can't be ignored.

>invading Belgium was a perfectly reasonable decision. There is nothing inherently "evil" about any of this.
Perfidious.

Literally what is the Treaty of London, which was confirmed by the German Confederation, which swore Belgium to neutrality and all of the European states to guard Belgium's neutrality if attacked.

The whole idea is that Germany could have won if the German army was allowed to. My post was pointing out how victory was not really possible at that point.

>In terms of tactics yes.
Invading a country is not a matter of tactics it's a decision of strategy.

>ignoring Belgium's legal neutrality, basically saying that "it's just a piece of paper"
That's what it is. If the German military believes that marching through Belgium saves the lives of German soldiers then they were right in making that decision. If they had won, nobody would have cared afterwards. Decisions like that have been made countless times throughout history and the various colonial powers - Belgium in particular - did not care about the opinions of the people they invaded either and thus cannot claim moral high ground.

>Them attacking Belgium drew Britain into the war
Bethmann-Holwegh believed that Britain would enter the war either way. That is a premise you'll need to consider.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing that marching through Belgium was the 'right' decision. It was the wrong decision. Germany would have been able to win a conventional two-fronts war against France and Russia, even though they themselves believed themselves unable to do so. I'm merely saying that there are far worse things than ignoring a treaty.

It may not be evil but it is aggressive, even ignoring the neutrality of Belgium (you shouldn't), Germany pushed an foreign policy which intentionally pushed other nations to war, they ignored and broke foreign treaties and actively undermined peaceful solutions. Then apologists come in and say other people were responsible for fighting for their own interests, or comment on the tactics of the war or historical conduct by other participants, trying to ignore the disproportionate blame for the conflict that lies directly at the feet of the Germans.

about 12k jews fought for germany in ww1.
Oh come on you know good and well that Germany was responsible for the first war. two is another story but 1 was just a gigantic political clusterfuck.

>If they had won, nobody would have cared afterwards.
what sort of revisionism is this? history may be written by the victors but that doesn't stop the losers from being extremely butthurt about it

The only reason why the germans were butthurt is because they didnt actually lose to any european force and that they all ganged up on them in the versailles treaty.

Germany shares the responsibility for the outbreak of WW1 but it was not their intent.

The point is that there are a lot worse things you can do than ignore a treaty.

Yes, for example killing Belgian civilians and burning their cities, including universities and libraries.

Blown out of proportion by propaganda and again: none of the participating powers behaved any better in their colonies.

I wonder how many of those were Jewish Germans.

Bolshevist Russia only existed because the first German shenanigans

That isn't the point, the stab-in-the-back "myth" makes perfect sense considering German morale, availability of basic foodstuffs to the civilian populace, and the rising popularity and propaganda of socialism and communism among German workers. Combine that with the majority of the Spartacust League leadership being Jewish and it all seems plausible that Hitler would believe it, much less that it is nominally true.

>availability of basic foodstuffs to the civilian populace
Pretty sure the Turnip Famine happened.

>Brown people and White people have the same worth

Someone's going to come cite the 12k number. Just remember that the 11 million Germans fought in wwi. That's .001%.

Interesting isn't it. 30-40% of doctors and lawyers were Jewish. Hmmm.

What was it like 70% of badens deputies to the reichstag were Jewish?

Funny how that part gets left out in the books.

The stab in the back story is a myth because the Kiel mutiny happened first , and the full scale armed Spartacist uprising happened AFTER the 1918 armistice in November 11. Also in retrospect it was the German populace that was starved, exhausted and indignant about how the war had turned up. Before that the Spring 1918 offensive had failed miserably and the Hindenburg line had collapsed and in September, both Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary had collapsed and capitulated , making the military situation hopeless for any win or even an inconclusive peace with the Entente.

Ludwndorf promoted the stab in the back before the armistice as the home front and socialists conspiring strikes at arms factories. Then he added in the politicians working out an armistice when 'they could still win'.

It makes sense but ignoring the first part is ignoring mein kamof and ludendorf

>What was it like 70% of badens deputies to the reichstag were Jewish?
Source? Which election?

I started fucking frowning when that sidekick british spy protagonist shows up and calls himself "good" and the germans "baddies"

blame Zach Snyder, the 40 year old manchild that thinks ww1 had nazis

there was this famous german jewish pilot that drew swastikas on his plane

>Funny how that part gets left out in the books.

>30-40% of doctors and lawyers were Jewish. Hmmm.
I don't know about German history book but in my Polish history books it's mentioned that 40-50% of lawyers and doctors were Jews. I'm sure it's also mentioned in academic books about the history of Germany.

>Invading Belgium.
>A bad thing
Come on man.

100,000 Jews fought in the German Uniform during world war I
12,000 gave their lives for their country
18,000 received Iron Crosses for their service.

>Luxemburg agreeing with leninism

>The veterans who remained in Germany, also initially released after arrests during the Kristallnacht, received no special treatment after this, being deported to concentration camps and murdered like other Jewish German citizens. The Nazis attempted to eradicate all evidence of Jewish soldiers fighting for Germany in World War I.[2][1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Jewish_military_personnel_of_World_War_I

More like
>trade with us like you trade with everyone else, or we'll invade you

Germany funded Bolsheviks to destabilize Russia.

>all your allies has collapsed
>1.8 million Italians poised to strike beneath the Reich
>1 million Romanian,600 k Greeks, 580 k Serbians in the east
>6.2 million men are converging to strike in the western front
>W-we didn't lose gaiz

Ludendork and Hindendreck are liars to the
highest degree,its also funny that they take their own bullshit about the stab in the back and the autistic kaiser has to take the blame for them

This: about 100,000 German Jews fought, and ~12,000 fell. Proportionally, as many Jews fought for Germany as non-Jews.

This is a disgrace...

Portray actual historical person in comic book universe.

What could go wrong?

>"They're evil because they're Germans and Germans are evil" is lazy fucking storytelling.
The Germans in the movie, for the most part, WEREN'T evil. It was only the general and the doctor poison who were evil.

>implying the february revolution didn't destabilize the country

I laughed my ass off when he got killed with a fucking sword. I guess the Snyder DC movies are all alternate history films now.

>Interesting isn't it. 30-40% of doctors and lawyers were Jewish. Hmmm.
people always get butthurt that jews are overrepresented in the professions, but why do you imply that this is a conspiracy? at worst, it's "nepotism" of jews favoring jews. but as it is being a lawyer or doctor is a very rigorous process, and the professions, sort of like guilds, create self-governing bodies that uphold rigorous standards and discipline their members in breach of any rules set out by the professional organization. Jews then were no more corrupt or less competent than their non-jewish counterparts. And even if there was nepotism (charges which you /pol/acks have NEVER once in my time here have proven), professional organizations dictate that standards are upheld. But, of course, you'll never recognize that Jews gravitated toward these positions because their culture put emphasis on literacy and academic achievement because that contradicts your narrative.

wrong haircut

revisionism

Belgium- committed a genocide against africans in their colonies, and claimed neutrality despite a blatant bias favoring entente allied countries

Britain- had a massive empire that made common practice of manipulating racial tensions and using underhanded tactics to maintain control in the regions they occupied

France- also ruled their colonies in a manner similar to the british

Im not saying the germans were innocent, but they were not villains, or not more so than any entente member.

Ludendorff was one of the big players behind all of the political shenanigans that delayed the end of the war. The Oberste Heeresleitung had the SPD installed to be the fall guys for peace negotiations, which were clearly inevitable with the costly halting of the spring offensive. While you could argue that the OHL would have to be nuts to think that might work, Ludendorff pushing the Dolchstoßlegende is nothing more that cynical self preservation.

The Mars Powder un-JUSTed his hairline

If they somehow won, I seriously doubt they would be able to incorporate parts of either country's empires into their own, considering the loss of so much of their navy, and should any colony resist continued occupation, german troops would be unwilling or unable to suppress revolutions and we would then see colonies gaining independence much sooner.

I think it had a lot to do with the Spartacist revolution that lead to the Weimar Republic civil whos leadership was quite heavy with jews.

A serbian terrorist killed the heir to their throne. Now a days, all a terrorist has to do is stab some europeans and suddenly multinational coalitions have invaded the terrorist's entire country. Can you really blame the austrians? If your empire was going to shit, and now some serb just gunned down your archduke, what would you do?

The butthurt would have been glorious to see if they divided them again rather than take their allowance

>forget the moustache
>turn him into a cardboard villian
>killed him off (so who the fuck supported Hitler in this timeline?)
>killed off numerous key german officals

The actor sounded Russian. Worst fucking German accent ever.

Thats how it was "perceived" but it wasn't true and its anyway a totally separate from the question of Jews in the professions. There was a lot of Jewish leadership but to emphasize that as the most important characteristic linking the more German Revolutions in Munich and Berlin is entirely misleading and ignores the fact that some didn't want violent revolution and that there were huge ideological differences that put them at odds with one another: differences more important to them than their common ethnic descent.

You fight wars for a political goal. "Strategy" that brings short term success on the battlefield but acts against your political goal is shit strategy. Germany is good at winning battles and operations, terrible at actually "winning" wars.

Invading Belgium offers a leg up on the French, but brings in the British and their fleet, when immediately blockaded Germany and cut off all the critical trade that Germany needed to sustain itself. No amount of battlefield success in France as a result of invading Belgium was worth the British blockade.

>Weimar Republic civil whos leadership was quite heavy with jews
Can you name at least 5 important Jewish leaders from Weimar Republic?
Presidents? All Germans. Chancellors? All Germans. Foreign minister Rathenau was probably the only famous Jewish politician and he was assassinated by the right wing after Treaty of Rapallo.
Artists, bankers, some journalists, sure. Politicians? Not really. I guess it's possible that many local politicians were Jews (for example people in city councils), but I haven't read anything about it.

And of course Spartacist revolution did not lead to the Weimar Republic. It was just a small communist uprising crushed by the new government led by social democrats.

hello friend

Thats a very interesting take on it all, I do wonder what the relative prospertiy o f Eastern europe would look like a whole 100 years after a Central Powers victory vs an Entente victory

>I think it had a lot to do with the Spartacist revolution that lead to the Weimar Republic civil whos leadership was quite heavy with jews

The Spartacist uprising was an uprising AGAINST the Weimer Republic, and it was suppressed BY the Weimer Republic with help from right-wing militias.

You are so ignorant of history. It's like you've stepped onto Veeky Forums through a portal from Germany in the late 30s. This is a total fabrication. Ebert, an ethnic German and first president of the Weimar Republic, partnered with the Freikorps, a far-right paramilitary organization, to assassinate several major Spartacist leaders who supported a socialist, Bolshevik-style revolution, within just over two months of the sailors' mutinies which sparked what you stupidly call the "Spartacist revolution".

Ludendorff and Hindenburg were literally the dudes who started "stab in the back" myth because they got rammed on the field and sought an excuse to salvage their reputation. For some reason many German generals were very shitty and persons and liars. Like Manstein and "lmao Hitler made us lose war".

You know, someone should seriously do a real academic study on the source of this consistent failing of the German general staff.

It's a universal trait of all humans that they can't be objective with regards to their own failures, ESPECIALLY if they've poured lots of effort into something that didn't work out. Ludendorff started out the war as a pretty normal dude, and got more unhinged as it dragged on until he became the personification of "ow, the edge."

This one might

Britain was already going to war with Germany. And they treated the agreement as just as much as Germany.
The treaty of London actually had specified what happens im the event of a violation of Belgium's neutrality: All of the signatories agree not to engage in hostile actions, and await the outcome of a diplomatic conference between the signatories to decide the matter, because the entire treaty of London was carefully crafted to ensure that Belgium wouldn't be the cause of a war between two Europesn powers. Shows how much the British cared for a scrap of paper.

Right, but there was two wars where the German generals immediately launched a dedicated disinfo campaign at the end of hostilities. No one does that after a war. You don't see a genre of literature from White Russians trying to make you believe they never lost the war. It serms reasonable that such a quick, deficated, and effective effort in the aftermath says something about the way German Officers were trained.

Whether it's shit strategy or good strategy, strategy is still strategy and not tactics. Also it should be considered that Germans didn't even consider political decisions part of military strategy. To the German generals, the decision whether to attack Belgium or not was not a military matter but only the "how" was relevant to them. Which is of course ironic, given that they had all read their Clausewitz probably more than everyone else, and it's Clausewitz who clearly states that military decisions are but an extension of the political realm.

>A serbian terrorist killed the heir to their throne.
user, you can not be so naive. It's just a propaganda excuse. Was someone killed when Austria annexed Bosnia few years prior? WW1 almost started in 1909 but Antanta backed off that time.

I can't remember the name of the book by Kissinger but he asserted that the cause of WW1 was a total failure of political strategy. The cause as he believes was the movement away from Bismarck and Richelieu realpolitik which was more fluid and adaptable versus the rigid system of defensive alliances that dragged everyone onto a war over a small balkan nation.

TLDR; Europes political was autistic and rigid.

Europe's political system'

Looks more like Falkenhyn.

what kind of monsters would ever do such a thing to little old belgium?? :((