This was Axis held territory in 1918, WW1

British colonies =/= the world

the world in fact was more like the germans side in both wars

What he said is LITERALLY fact...

Thats the Central Powers you retard

yes but the fact is he is implying that the war was not Germany's fault, which is not the case

what about when germany invaded poland before?

Ah so you're saying the US started the Gulf War by declaring war on Iraq?

and USSR...
So you think its morally justified for Britain and France to launch Europe into another world shattering war that would kill 60 million plus for some Polish clay?

No, completely different interests and motives were at work.

The war was clearly not Germany's fault though. The Allies robbed the Germans of their right to self-determination. If the Allies hadn't cut Germany piecemeal, WW2 would not have started at all, at least not from Germany invading Poland. It cannot be said in any responsible way that Germany was at fault for wanting to free her people.

Iraq is an artificial country, any war that it's caused should be put squarely on the shoulders of the creators of the country.

You see, the Jews and the Social Democrats conspired against the Kaiser and his victorious armies and started massive internal revolts and strikes that crippled the war economy and ultimately toppled the German government. In turn the undefeated armies of the Reich had to surrender to the orders of the unelected revolutionary clique of Scheidemann and Ebert.

>The Axis
It's the centrals, uncultured swine.
Anyway, the answer is economy: both sides had basically sent the core of their workforce (young men) into battle, leaving the farms empty and many businesses unmanned. Women took up work in factories and the like, but weren't able to take up all the roles the men left behind. This means there were heavy food shortages and the Centrals had neither the colonies nor the economy to get food from external sources, nevermind the massive blockade of the ports by the Allies (mostly Brits). The allies meanwhile had the US loaning them tons of supplies and food to keep up, keeping their economy somewhat afloat. This + the people simply being tired of war after seeing all, the atrocities going on on the front caused massive civil unrest, especially in Germany. The German navy was planned to try a breakthrough of the British blockade but instead went in mutiny because of the unrest, which flared the begining of the end for the empire and started mass rioting in Germany that was rapidly growing larger, prompting the Emperor to abdicate. The new social-democratic government made the decision to surrender, as their troops were far too tired and undersupplied to do anything but drag the war out, especially now that the fresh American soldiers arrived.

>le regurgitate 70 year old talking points

Get an argument.

>The war was clearly not Germany's fault though
"no"
>violates pretty much every aspect of versallies
>threatens war to get sudetenland
>breaks promise and invades Czechoslovakia anyways
>tries to pull the same stunt with Poland and gets called on it

Daily reminder that this is all the fault of the Congress of Vienna.

>germany can't feed its own people under blockade
>Austria is even less self-sufficient
>Hungarians continue to ruin everything by refusing to export any food or even ration
>Galicia, the breadbasket of Austria-Hungary, is devastated by war
>takes on millions of new people who are a drain on resources even when kept on starvation rations

Hmm I wonder why

>violates pretty much every aspect of versallies
The treaty of Versailles violated pretty much every principle of international, such as the right to national self-determination which was guaranteed to all European parties by expressly stated American foreign policy
>threatens war to get sudetenland
Due to violations of the right to national self-determination of the German bohemians who were treated as disenfranchised second class citizens despite being the second biggest population group after Czechs and before Slovaks
>breaks promise and invades Czechoslovakia anyways
By express wishes of the Czecho-Slovak president Hacha.
>tries to pull the same stunt with Poland and gets called on it
I guess you still believe that the Gleiwitz incident was staged and that Germans weren't progromed by Polacks in biblical proportions.

By having the Austro-Hungarians and the Ottomans collapse and having a near 2:1 disadvantage on said Western Front.

Also, it's the Central Powers, not Axis.

>This was Axis held territory in 1918, WW1

>Axis
>WW1

US education

The Triple Entente didn't divide Germany enough. Versailles was far too lenient.

You're pants on the head retarded

No. Germany declared war on Poland. Britain merely acted upon its guarantee.

>axis
Holy shit, are you that much of a brainlet?

Not that guy, but thanks for sharing.

buttmad bong detected

Were the Germans were pogromed?
In biblical proportions?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>Old arguments are bad by virtue of their age
Wew lad nice fallacy

Is this meming? The SPD were installed by the Kaiser and OHL to be blamehounds for the inevitable surrender negotiations.

>Britain started WW1
>Neither Austria-Hungary nor Serbia had any role in starting WW1

Found the guy who skipped high school history

as much as euros want to deny it, america played a major role in the central powers' defeat in ww1. this cant be measured by a death toll, because it was more about the entente being able to replace its losses with american troops, something the central powers could not do. realizing this, they surrendered in order to prevent needless destruction and death, something hitler was unable to do

>1 front
>3 fronts shown in picture
really makes me think

>implying the Italian and Greek fronts mattered

>Britain's and France's colonies had nothing to do with the entente being able to replenish their troops

Extracting food from Ukraine turned out to be a much slower process than the Germans had anticipated. Throughout the war, the Germans had desperately wanted to capture the fertile soil of Ukraine, in order to allow them to survive the blockade that Britain was imposing on them. However, when the German army finally reached Ukraine, it turned out that the people living there weren't willing to just hand over all their food. This wouldn't have been such a big problem if there had been more time to suppress local insurrections, but Germany was already so low on food that it couldn't wait any longer. Ukraine might have been able to feed Germany if it had be captured earlier in the war, but in 1918 it was simply too late. Time had run out.

The Italian front definitely did.

comparing those colonies to america is laughable

sure Giovanni, real important

The simple fact that Ludendorff knew that Americans were coming put a lot of pressure on his mind and forced him to take risks that he otherwise wouldn't have. The entire reason for Germany's Spring 1918 offensive was simply that Ludendorff was desperate to try and destroy France before Americans could arrive in large numbers.

Except I didn't compare them, also it's missing the point entirely.

And they still would have lost without those risks taken. Britain and France were able to keep going with their massive pool of men. Germany was running low. It just meant the war would have probably taken longer.

>hitler sez it so it true

wew lad nice argument

Where did that post anywhere say that Hitler claimed it to be true so it must be true?

Britain and France were pretty damn near the bottom of their manpower reserve as well. They were starting to draft 14-year-olds. No way they could have kept up fighting with reinforcements from America. If Zimmerman hadn't been so stupid, the war very likely would have ended with a German victory.

You're fucking dumb. The Commonwealth mobilized eight million soldiers alone, easily comparable and vastly exceeding the American contribution.

>finland
Uuuh, no.

But they could draw on the colonies which is the whole point. The Germans had no one they could turn to. Jünger talks about battle-worn Germans fighting massive battles they didn't have the manpower to win because of British colonial troops. This was at a time when it was obvious that German navel power was done leaving easy access for the millions of possible troops to land in Europe.

No it isn't. Britain and France told hitler to stop fucking around and he didn't listen so they (finally) fulfilled their promise. Saying Britain started it is like saying a cop started a fight after some fuckhead began pounding on another and he intervened to stop it.

Yeah, I'm sure the Germans were much more scared of some enslaved Pajeets than the USMC.

The funny is that Versailles, when compared to Saint-Germain, Trianon, Brest-litovsk, Ankara, was nothing but a slap on the wrist. What really made Germany butthurt was that they had to accept responsibility for the war.

Italy managed to knock out austria

The Germans weren't scared of jack shit. They were starving and just done with the whole affair. Entente (read: British and French) tactics and strategy were only getting better and better, and their manpower reserves were larger. American marines, as much as you might like to think it, were not in any way a significant contribution to winning the war.

The biggest problem with Versailles is simply that Russia wasn't around anymore. If the Romanovs had made it to the end of the war, they would have demanded huge territorial concessions from Germany.

>pajeet trenches are just full of shit so when the krauts take them they begin to fall ill to the countless diseases in the fecal matter

>The Allies robbed the Germans of their right to self-determination.
In practice populations of different national groups are usually so intermixed it's impossible to decide what territory should be part of what country on that basis alone.
>If the Allies hadn't cut Germany piecemeal
It's what Germany did to France after 1871. Fair is fair.

I'm pretty sure he was memeing. I think the average stormtard doesn't even know what the Social Democrats were.

Silly you, of course you know where. In Bromberg where it ended with 500k dead Germans.

>one front
No. The Austro-Hungarians got PASTA'D in the south, the Ottomans got ANGLO'D in the Middle East, and the Bulgarians got VARDAR'D in the Balkans.

More than that, its no worse than what Germany did to the allied Russians in the same damn war with Brest-Litovsk.

Good point

In some areas they're intermixed, in some areas there's a clear majority one way or the other. The lands robbed from the German Empire were clearly German-majority and were taken to destabilize the country.

The Germans gave freedom to groups of peoples like the Belarusians and Ukrainians who deserved self-determination.

>The Germans gave freedom to groups of peoples like the Belarusians and Ukrainians who deserved self-determination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ober_Ost

>deserved
They neither wanted nor deserved it. And those areas were German puppets, beholden with ridiculous trade agreements and exploitative alliances, particularly with the retarded Baltic Duchy idea, which basically brought back the medieval vassal system. The Germans furthermore refused to recognise Poland as even being a state, so your idea of the Germans as progressive liberators who desired ethnic groups being independent is false and delusional.

>The lands robbed from the German Empire were clearly German-majority

No they weren't, that's only the case for Danzig and Eupen-Malmedy. The lands in the East were mixed and majority Polish, though admittedly a plebiscite in all those areas would've meant that Germany lost less land, especially around the lower Vistula.

Alsace-Lorraine was mostly German-speaking, but in 1918 the athmospere was pro-French, or at least independentist.

Austria and the Sudetenland are a different case, but those weren't part of the German Empire.

They also had over 1 million german troops occupying Poland, Belarus and the Ukraine and probably a hundred thousand or so in the balkans so theres that

Usually when there is this kind of discussion about whether the attacks of Germany in the Second World War were fair or not, who says that they were usually throws a lot of shit and is humiliated by the leftists of the board.

But this time I am amused that OP has been able to refute its mantras with very simple refutations.

>Axis
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwww laaaaaaaaaaa

>Usually when there is this kind of discussion about whether the attacks of Germany in the Second World War were fair or not, who says that they were usually throws a lot of shit and is humiliated by the leftists of the board.

Holding Germany responsible for its actions in WW1 and WW2 is not a "leftist" position, some would even argue that a harsher tone towards Germany comes from an increasingly chauvinist and sabre-rattling population sliding to the right.

For the record, I'm generally on the left and I believe that Germany behaved barbarically in both World Wars, I'm just pointing out that there are no ideological boundaries in recognizing the obvious.

>"Central" Powers
>include the Ottoman Empire, which was southeast of Europe

what a bunch of IDIOTS! no wonder they lost the WWII......lol

The Ottoman Empire was not originally part of the Central Powers, Italy was.

A-H and Germany then declared an offensive war, and Italy justifiably fucked off, seeing as the alliance was supposed to be purely defensive.

>WWI was started by Britain, France, Germany, and Russia.
No, WWI was started by the fucking Serbians with the Bosnians. Austrians and Hungarians are to blame too.

France, Germany, and Russia just fucking escalated it.

>WW1
>axis

Ottomans were losing
Austrians were overextended with occupied territory
Germany were left to their own devises, so when their line broke, all was lost.

>muh Black Hand was a branch of the Serb government conspiracy

Are you implying the Black Hand wasn't part of the Serb government and weren't training guerrillas like the Young Bosnia?

Germany's homefront was at breaking point due to the bloackade, their Allies who relied on German support were on the verge of collapse, and their own army despite being reinforced was tired out from over 3 years of grueling war across Europe.

Also the British and the French under the supreme command of Foch successfully managed to contain Germany's infiltration tactics through elastic defense ending any chance of Germany knocking the allies out before the Americans could arrive in large numbers. This did happen in which the Germans lost their manpower advantage of 200,000 men over the British and French before the Michael Offensive.

>Holding Germany responsible for its actions in WW1 and WW2 is not a "leftist" position

And I did not say it was. I said that those who defend that position are leftists because this is usually the case, at least on this board.

And I do not support his massive chimpout in both world wars. But I enjoy the retard mouths being shut.

How have the arguing 'mouths' been shut? Your posts are supercilious as hell, and yet you've not engaged in any of the 'simple refutations' you claim have shut them up. Do you think the Versailles treaty was unjustified considering the German dominated, extremely harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk? No one can possibly argue that the Entente was not simply holding true to the precedent that they themselves imposed on the defeated Entente power.

America
fuck yeah

First of all, the post that you just answered is my first message in this thread.

Second, as I said in this post, I do not support German aggression in both world wars.

Third, you say that the Brest-Litovsk treaty was tough, but unlike Austria, Russia was not dismembered and reduced to a joke of what it was. And even if the treatise was as hard as you make it look, two incorrect attitudes do not make magically a correct one.

Third, with refutations I mean this:

>I said in this post
here:

You've cherrypicked weak and shitpost-ey responses there. The self-determination argument on behalf of the germans I think is dismantled by the terms of the treaty - the Baltics became, briefly, quite literal vassals of Germany, whilst sections of Russia - Erdehan, Kars, and Batum were parceled off and given to the Ottomans, a failing, absolutist state with no interest whatsover in the supporting of self-determination for the ethnic minorities within the empire. Belarus, and the Ukraine, had shown no overt signs of discontent, and in the case of Belarus, were forced by the Germans to form the buffer state they are today.
In regards to Austria, and Trianon, I think our views align. However, internal separatism and liberals in Vienna were a huge part of the dissolution, immediately in the wake of the War pushing for the dismantlement they'd always hoped for, and Wilson's 14 points, upon which America had entered the war on the side of Britain and France in the first place, tied the hands of powers which might have stopped it.
Sorry, I thought you had been posting throughout the thread.

As I said, I'm not defending the Brest-Litovsk treaty, I simply make a comparison between that and the Treaty of Versailles.

It seems to me that the argument of self-determination for the Germans is correct and more so for the allies, given that they filled their mouths with the supposed "self-determination" and then annexed territory with Germans to countries created by themselves as Czechoslovakia.

>Yeah, I'm sure the Germans were much more scared of some enslaved Pajeets than the USMC.
The United States Meme Corps was (and still is) a big fucking joke. Nobody outside of the US cares about those swabbies.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try and try again

they almost won but they didnt have the logistics or mobility to deliver the final blow on france

also their soldiers were starving from the blockade so they all stopped to loot food from the surrounding countryside while they advanced

not only that the requisition of metal was starting to dry up, they were tearing down 300 year old church bells and melting them down

germans thought it mattered quite a bit

To be fair i would imagine that the german military administrations in tge east would be temporary or would at least soften once the war had ended

The idea that the germans wanted to "free" eastern europe is a meme, just realpolitik in desperation to win the war. However I don't think the British and Frenh have a leg to stand on in the "self-rule" department considering Ireland and their many African and Asian colonies. Is a lithuanian or pole worth more then an algerian, senegalese, indian etc.?

>Is a lithuanian or pole worth more then an algerian, senegalese, indian
Well they're certainly more European

>USMC is a joke
Not that user, but are you retarded or extremely Anti-American that you say dumb shit. As a martime to land force, the USMC after the 1940s and on-wards is an efficient fighting force.

Funnily enough, yes.
Pajeets would have used british tactics acquired from 4 years of war experience, whereas the americans, upon arriving, were doing the same stupid shit the others did at the start of the war, like open mass charges and wouldn't take advice from british and french military experts, at least not initially.

The USMC has only two things going for it: a large recruiting pool and a large industrial base. They are only as effective as they are because they have the numbers to be effective.

>i would imagine that the german military administrations in tge east would be temporary or would at least soften once the war had ended

Highly doubtful given the german's track record up to that point.