Would you, or would you not, blame Germany for World War 1?

I, for one, certainly would, however I would like to hear your opinion. Please use REASON and FACTS in your answer.

Attached: German_Empire_1000.jpg (940x752, 317K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_East_Prussia_(1914)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Galicia
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'd blame Austria-Hungary more so for starting it and blame Germany (as well as France, Russia and Britain) for escalating it.

I blame France and England for not sharing the colonies. Germany deserves their right to own good lands in Africa.

What? Serbia should've respected the ultimatum instead of gambling on the world war to push their goals of Balkan domination.

It was Austro-Hungarian, Serbian, and Russian autism.

well, they could have not intervened and let russia do their thing with serbia and austo hungary and it would have stayed a small war
germans just declared war on russia, and their ally france for good measure
i think they are to blame

The same could be said for Russia.
>well, they could have not intervened and let Austria-Hungary do their thing with Serbia and it would have stayed a small war
Russia forced Germany's hand by mobilizing.

the serbs complied agreed to the ultimatum almost entirely.

> almost
At this point, you can just sign up it entirely. Only if to avoid the fucking death of European civilization.

'almost' being the operative word.

Austria lost the most which mean that they were most deluded and should be blamed the most.

No because I’m not a Jew

Attached: 442DF785-34B0-410E-9568-EA027077A0E1.jpg (700x422, 51K)

Lol, Germany had been planning this for years. They just grabbed the first excuse that presented itself.

Versailles was actually a very merciful outcome for Germany. The Allies could have (and probably should have) completely wiped Germany from the map, splitting it up into puppet states.

Spoken like a true kike.

Versailles was less harsh than Brest (which was the very definition of the fair treaty by German standards.)

>At this point, you can just sign up it entirely.
?
They accepted all but one point, and even in that point-- that they wouldn't allow austrians to take over the government investigation-- the serbs agreed to be in close communciation with the austrian officials over any developments in the case. The Ultimatum was purposely designed to be intolerable to the serbs but even STILL the serbs agreed to it and their reply was diplomatic and submissive. I'm not saying the serbs are goodbois all the time, only that Austrians set up the serbs for failure because the Austrian high government was already agreed that serbia would be attacked regardless of her response to the Ultimatum. I mean, the Ultimatum took 2 WEEKS to be sent after the assassination.

Hmm is that why Walter Rachenau mobilized Germany for total war using ingenious methods to make up for shortfalls? Was that part of the jewish plot? really makes me think!

BLAME
Russia - 30%
Germany - 20%
France - 25%
UK - 20%
AH - 5%

Total Entente Blame = 75%
Total Central Powers Blame = 25%

>is da juice

They could've just kept this war involved to Russia vs Germany and easily won this. Goddammit.

Was hatten wir für Möglichkeiten

Attached: kaiserreichpeter.png (650x475, 188K)

>AH - 5%

Attached: 1514904959215.png (949x647, 26K)

Are you expecting France just to ignore alliance with Russia?

Well, France was going to get involved anyway because of their alliance with Russia. Where the Germans goofed big-time was when they invaded Belgium just to get around a few forts in eastern France, thus bringing the UK into the war on the side of France. Germany, Austria, and the Ottomans together could have thrashed France + Russia rather easily. But they couldn't deal with the UK joining the war. The UK was the richest country in Europe, and also had the largest navy during the 1910's. And perhaps most importantly, the British Empire had effectively unlimited manpower to throw against Germany and her allies thanks to her vast overseas colonial holdings. When Britain declared war on Germany, the war was already decided.

Yes, Russia had committed an act of war, and France was not obligated by their alliance.

>When Britain declared war on Germany, the war was already decided.
No, it wasn't. Had the US not supported them from the start, they would have settled in 1915-16.

This desu, in the later years of the war the entente economy basically subsisted on loans from US banks.

This

Austria and Germany are the only ones rationally blamable

Attached: wwdf.png (1058x485, 45K)

>Where the Germans goofed big-time was when they invaded Belgium just to get around a few forts in eastern France, thus bringing the UK into the war on the side of France

Massive brainlet
Britain was part of the Triple Entente, and as soon as France got involved (thus offering them a front where to fight without having to try some landing in Germany with their shitty army) it was pretty much obvious they'd get involved

Belgium was just an extremy convenient excuse granted to them on a sliver plate, but they'd have joined regardless

they did a pre emptive strike, taking advantage of superior mobilization capabilities. If Russia never mobilized their army there would have been no need for Germany to counter mobilize.

BLAME
Russia - 20%
Germany - 30%
France - 15%
UK - 5%
AH - 30%
Total Entente Blame = 40%
Total Central Powers Blame = 60%

This is probably more accurate, I think.
Austria and Germany both madly wanted war, Russia was too invested into the Balkans to let Austria take a monopoly, France followed Russians to war (and also for Alsace-Lorraine), and Britain wasn't really involved in the making of the war, except wanting to stop the possibility of a German hegemon.
I still wish the Central Powers won though.

Attached: Family_Photo.jpg (525x340, 45K)

If anyone says the blame lies with anyone other than Serbia, you may be on the spectrum. The Archduke was assassinated by a member of an underground society that was proven to be funded by the Serbian government. Serbia rejected the ultimatum knowing full-well it would lead to war. I don't think they expected it to escalate as much as it did, but they're still responsible for starting it.

>4325415
No (You)s for You(s)

>not blaming the serbs at all
I've detected the butthurt Slavs of this thread

>When Britain declared war on Germany, the war was already decided.

Germany and the UK likely sue for peace and throw France under a bus if the US doesn’t get involved.

Where the fuck is Serbia in these? Serbia should have at least 20% of the blame.

Attached: 1278756274724.gif (400x365, 20K)

>Be Germany
>Actually plan for and want a war
>Encourage your main ally in Europe to start a war
>Your nations mobilization plans means war must quickly follow
>Actually declare war and invade people first
>People to this day still believe you dindu nuffins

>but the Russians mobilized first!!1!1!11!

Their mobilization wasn't built around immediately invading someone like the Germans was and the Russians repeatedly told Germany and Austria that they only wanted a diplomatic solution in the Balkans.

Uh you retard P*ris (aka France) had been aching for a fight with Prussia (aka Germany) since getting humiliated during the France-Prussian War

is that why the positioned their men 6 miles behind their borders?

When in doubt, blame the slav(e)s and eternal anglos.

I'd say Germany is mainly responsible for escalating it, but considering the Russian mobilization and French support of anti-Central-Powers movements e.g. in the Balkans it was a matter of time anyway.
Their greatest mistake was overestimating Austrian capabilities, which cost them the victory in 1914 and instead brought about a long and costly, eventually lost war...
Should have done this and just kept defenses on the Franco-German border: >Their mobilization wasn't built around immediately invading someone
right, that's why they were able to immediately launch invasions with hundreds of thousands of men into Galicia and East Prussia in August 1914. You're lying.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_East_Prussia_(1914)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Galicia

>that was proven to be funded by the Serbian government.
the serbian government wasn't monolithic.
>Serbia rejected the ultimatum knowing full-well it would lead to war.
they agreed to everything except one point, which was implied as negotiable

Doch wir flogen zu nah an der Sonne.

blame from most to least:

Germany
ah
russia
france
serbia
UK

UK had a sizeable peace contingent in the government and popular opinion until Hans crossed the border of Belgium and saw a woman who shaves for the first time in his life. Once the eternal kraut started raping and murdering, Britain was committed100%.

>Britain dindu nuffin they wuz good boys

Attached: only good intentions.jpg (736x432, 50K)

>20 days between mobilisation and invasion for Russia
>50k men involved in the invasion
>Two "armies" wander in to Prussia with no organised plan or cooperation
>1-2 days between mobilisation and invasion for Germany
>750k, 3 armies in Belgium in under a week
>German mobilisation plan is literally prewritten in sealed envelopes so once mobilisation has started it must end with an invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France

days between mobilisation and invasion for Russia
k men involved in the invasion
why are you lying?

Attached: -.jpg (646x1018, 298K)

Serbia threw the first rock
AH went way to far and pretty much started the whole thing
Germany gave AH the green light, pissed off the UK with its navy building the and the whole thing was a backdrop of Franco-Prussian war v2
France also encircled Germany with Russia which is a time bomb
Russia made war a sure thing
the UK didn't start it but without them France would have lost and it wouldn't have taken 4 years for the war to end

pretty much everyone avoided war that shit was happening no matter what Serbia did

Battle of Stallupönen was the first battle of the Eastern Front and began August 17th. By the time it happened battles involving hundreds of thousands had already been fought in the West and Germany was already in France.

Russian mobilisation, not even French or British mobilisation was pre-planned for an invasion of another country. Only Germany had the issue where mobilisation must end in war, everyone else could mobilise and not invade, this is different in intent.

>manpower in colonies, good luck conscripting them
>large navy but Jutland
>the economy heavily suffered anyway

>Only Germany had the issue where mobilisation must end in war
could you provide a source for that?

the entire schlieffen plan was to crush France quickly before Russia mobilized and took Berlin. The kaiser explicitly asked tomobilize and not initiate the invasion of Belgium and France, but the General Staff said it didn’t work that way.

To every nation but Germany, mobilization meant putting your troops on your own borders. To Germany, mobilization meant Schlieffen plan. Many times in the past century countries mobilized and it didn’t lead to war, something wehraboos conveniently ignore.

I was asking for a source, not more claims...

If i wasnt phoneposting I would give you a real source, but any book or article on the schlieffen plan will give you the source you are looking for

What's your source for the claim that Germany was looking for a war rather than just had plans on how to act if it came to that?

Read the book 1914- real blame is the Russian French alliance and the French desire for revenge from verdun. Germany could only win the impending war if they could attack quickly in the west, gain peace and redivert their troops east. If they waited for Russia and France for the first move then they were definitely doomed. The U.K. Joining the French alliance gave Germany no option other to attack first

I just skimmed through the Wiki page on the Schlieffen plan and I didn't find anything that said a German mobilisation required to go to war.
Bro Germany declared war on Russia and France

>If they waited for Russia and France for the first move then they were definitely doomed.
why? remaining defensive in the west would have required far less troops and possibly even kept out Britain
remember Germany was able to achieve massive victories against Russia even whilst being occupied with both France and UK in the west...
>The U.K. Joining the French alliance gave Germany no option other to attack first
(officially) the UK joined BECAUSE Germany attacked first...

The difference here is that Germany was stuck in the middle between two incredibly powerful allied states. If it mobilised without invading it would've just lead to them being sandwiched. Their only chance at victory was through an early knock out of atleast one of their foes before the other was ready to join in to the fray.

Of course they're guilty of pushing for it, starting it but I can't blame a country for wanting more and acting on it

>Bro Germany declared war on Russia and France
Because they were in an alliance. Don't act like the french wouldn't have been highly incentives to join the war to get back Alsace-Lorraine.
And like said Germany had no option but to try to get France out of the way early if they wanted to win a war against both powers. And yes german mentality of sticking to the plan was an obvious factor in it. They just didn't want to risk it.

If you read statements from German politicians they were itching for war in 1880s already with future chancellors demanding ethnic cleansing of Slavs to make room for German colonists.
So I am inclined to say 100% fault of Germany.

>Britain wasn't really involved in the making of the war, except wanting to stop the possibility of a German hegemon.
..which means they were heavily involved, as they were ravenous to go to war with Germany, which was overtaking them, as we see today.

>Russians repeatedly told Germany and Austria that they only wanted a diplomatic solution
...except they mobilized their military against Germany, the first act of war which precipitated WW1.

>the serbian government wasn't monolithic.
...so the serbrats required adult supervision? Fine, that's what A-H was about to provide, as had been historical practice amongst all these nations.

I love how this discussion always eventually gets to the point where the "It was Russia and France's fault" people give up arguing that Germany wasn't the aggressor, and instead argue that Germany had "no choice" but to be the aggressor.
If the Belgians didn't want their country invaded maybe they shouldn't have put it in Germany's way.

>I didn't find anything that said a German mobilisation required to go to war.
The Schlieffen plan was baked directly into Germany mobilization plan. Instructions for carrying out the plan were kept in sealed envelopes which were handed out to soldiers during mobilization.

There was already a war going on when Russia began mobilization.

>Germany couldn't take risks, so they took a huge risk.

Attached: 1521252542704.jpg (625x415, 58K)

>If they waited for Russia and France for the first move then they were definitely doomed.
Letting Russian and France make the first move would have been the ideal thing for Germany to do, actually, because it would have kept Britain out of the war. Britain wouldn't have sided with France if it looked like France and Russia were attacking Germany rather than the other way around.

>manpower in colonies, good luck conscripting them
No need for that, the Empire's colonial subjects volunteered in huge numbers out of loyalty to Britain (and also because the pay was good).

>large navy but Jutland
But Jutland? How is that a "but"? The German navy got pushed back into their corner and never tried to break out again.

>the economy heavily suffered anyway
That's the nature of war, but the British economy was never seriously imperiled during the conflict.

Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia are the main parties to blame. To which extent they are to blame is up to debate.

>Lol, Germany had been planning this for years.
Germany didn't even have plans on what to do in case they won the war. They only made up their mind on their political goals after the war had already started. The German military had plans on what to do in case of war (just like any military), but politically Germany didn't plan for this war to happen at this point.

>German Chancellor Von Betsmeg Hollweg's diary from July 7th tells us these thoughts: That Russia had become a nightmare, and the German generals say there must be a war before it was too late; by 1917 Germany has no hope, so better 1914."

Your point being?

First of all, that doesn't tell us anything about your claim that "Germany has been planning a war for years" since as far as July 7th (I assume you're referring to the July Crisis here), they were already well into the whole mess and Bethmann-Holwegh's assessment of the situation is to be expected.
Second, the opinion of the military is not binding. Not to mention that it doesn't sound too confident. It sounds fearful and defensive to me rather than sounding like an eager conqueror that wants to subdue the world.

The civilian government of Germany didn't plan for a war, that is mostly correct. But the German military did, and unlike in France or Britain, the German military had a lot of independent authority to do what they wanted without consulting the civilian government for approval. For example, I don't think that the Reichstag was ever consulted before the double-ultimatum was sent to Russia and France.

>the opinion of the military is not binding.
If you're in a militaristic state like Imperial Germany, then it absolutely is.

Planning for war is the military's job. That's what they do when not fighting wars.

It's a little different when the military has the power to independently declare war on other countries without consulting the civilian government.

Did they independently declare war on other countries? The way I see it Germany asked France and Russia whether they would declare themselves neutral in a conflict of Serbia against Austria-Hungary. Since neither France nor Russia were willing to do that, what was supposed to happen? Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary who had been wronged by Serbia, a state that harboured the terrorists that murdered their heir to the throne, and both Russia and France were unwilling to give up on their allies either. How was Germany in the wrong here when they did the exact same thing?

>didn't go to war over Morocco
Hmmm...

They won the war for the Entente though

Was the civilian government of Germany consulted before the double ultimatum was sent to Russia and France? Was there ever a vote in the Reichstag to approve this? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, which means that the Germany military independently made the decision to go to war. If the matter had ever been put to a vote, then the war would have likely been averted, but there was no mechanism in place that could constrain the German military.

>Dude, give us the key of ALL your fortress.
>Dude Neutrality is for fag, right Belgium?
>French retire their troop from the border in signe of good faith?Dude send a patrol in their land and kill some people to force them to declare war.
>Dude we dindu nothing wrong.

Of course, if not for them then we would talk of the fourth Balkan war
So austria Hungary and their Balkan allies attack Russia and their Balkan allies now what happens, oh yeah France just sends funds wow
But no Prussian autism said they had to conquer their neighbours rather than befriend them

Why didn’t they expand into Ethiopia
Did they fear the armies of Solomon

Serbia agreed to everything apart from Austrian investigators
Of Germany didn’t give austria a guarantee I don’t think they would have put so much pressure on, especially considering the new crown prince was so reasonable

This isn't /int/, so please stop arguing in a retarded manner. The Serbian government was in a conflict between civil and military elements within it, that is fact. A-H wasn't any better though with Conrad and Berchtold bullying everyone into war.

Because that was a backwards comment about how Moroccans should be able to govern themselves not the army saying we must protect our ally >death of european civilisation
Maybe if the Germans didn’t use trench warfare American wouldn’t dominate
Also if germans didn’t elect a madman who would fuck up the one chance Germany had at recovering then ‘western civilisation’ would not have died

>The difference here is that Germany was stuck in the middle between two incredibly powerful allied states.
Hmmmm, it's almost as if there was such a thing as DIPLOMACY that could unfuck one's country out of this dilemma. It's almost as if German diplomacy was retardedly inadequate, lacking in direction and constantly making belligerent postures and unintentionally alienating itself across the country.

In hindsight it might have been but at the time Germany was outgunned, outproduced and outsourced by France and Russia combined.
Remember that the best defense is offense? Well that was Germany's plan.
I can't 100% predict but there wasn't the WW2 mentality of fighting in the colonies or anything, if the French were decisively crushed at the Marne and the Germans would take Paris, they would sue for peace and the Brits would too.

across the continent*

>Germany was outgunned, outproduced and outsourced by France and Russia combined.
You're forgetting about Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans. The Central Powers would have had a very clear upper-hand if they'd only played the diplomacy game just a little bit smarter to keep Britain out of the war.

>Their greatest mistake was overestimating Austrian capabilities, which cost them the victory in 1914 and instead brought about a long and costly, eventually lost war...

I blame the Hungarians for constantly fucking the Austrians out of the ability to fund and modernize their military:
>still used fucking BRONZE breach loading artillery
>had barely any machines gun
>had almost no airforce
>etc.

Oh well at least they were severely punished for it later with their country being raped into pieces.

>Dude, give us the key of ALL your fortress.
Given that France and Russia were pointing a loaded gun at Germany by threatening them with a two-fronts war, why wouldn't they expect a token of good faith?

>Dude Neutrality is for fag, right Belgium?
That happened when the war had already started.

>French retire their troop from the border in signe of good faith?Dude send a patrol in their land and kill some people to force them to declare war.
France didn't need to be forced. They were willing to go to war with Russia. Poincaré himself said so.

There wasnt any problem with a bronze canons, they used it because A-H bronze metalurgy was superior to steel canons of other powers through the entire 19th century. They were more or less equal to their counterparts in WW1

>Germany was afraid of a two-front war
>so that means it is okay that they started a two-front war

I doubt they could have kept britain out forever. Not going through Belgium might delay the british entry into the war, but if Germany manages to get the upperhand, Britain could always join, using the triple entente as official reasoning, to prevent potential german hegemony.