3 ms·

If anything Versaille was to weak and the answers not clear enough. German/Austrian alliance were clearly the aggressors and the German/Austrian were very aggr

If anything Versaille was to weak and the answers not clear enough. German/Austrian alliance were clearly the aggressors and the German/Austrian were very aggressive unleash the armies into Serbia and Belgium. One can argue that Russia partially mobilized first (in the border region), but unlike in the German case, they were still willing to do diplomacy for a lot longer. Britain in fact did try to use diplomacy and Germany was the power preventing any such settlement.

hef19898 3y ago
Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than. I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles on going to war at WW1. Sure, the Austrian approach to the Serbian situation was just plain stupid, as was Germany backing them. Bit it was totally understandable from their point of view. After all, back then, before the trench warfare hell started, everybod still thought it would something like back during Napoleon's days and in 1870 or the Prussian-Austrian war (people tend to overlook the fact Germany and Austria were not always close allies), you send ypur army, besiege some cities, meet in an open field battle, or multiple, the winner takes what he wants and the looser, including the population, accepts the outcome for the time being. Rinse and repeat. Still war, still bad, bad far from the hellscape modern turned out to be. WW1 was a true watershed in history, one we tend to fail fully appreciate as it is overshadowed by WW2 in every aspect.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than. No it wasn't. In fact, it took a massive amount of influence by Wilson himself to make it so. So much infect that Wilson actually was forced to promise a military alliance to France just so France would go along with it. Many influential figures in French were very well aware that the treaty was toothless. Foch being a leader of that group was absolutely convinced that the Ruhr region would have to be taken to insure French security, and he was right. At the same time in the US, the Republicans, who were totally shut out by Wilson also believed that the war should continue and Germany would have be totally defeated. Wilson was the problem. Wilson first refused to be part of the alliance. Second he then essentially forced the allies to accept the armistice based on his 14 points, something that he simply couldn't actually promise with France and Britain as 'allies'. French went along with it partly because they thought the armistice would put them in a better position as Germany was blockaded. Wilsons arrogance and his rejection of real alliance with France and Britain allowed the German to wedge themselves in between and get a favorable deal. The Wilson instead of fully embracing a version of the League of Nations lead by the victorious powers of US, France, Britain all allied together (as the UN became) and instead based everything on a notion of equality and collective security. A concept that was purely theoretical and most political scientist then or now didn't think it made sense. Wilson also was reluctant to put to much debt on Germany, while also firmly rejecting any debt based deals Britain proposed for collective debt forgiveness. And beyond that there was no effective vector put in place to punish Germany for not paying. > I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles Not sure what modern principles you are talking about. I am applying real politic principles that existed then too. > Napoleon's days The Napoleonic wars were horrible with a huge number of deaths. But still in a single day, Napoleonic battles had huge casualties. And lots and lots of people hard realized that the advances in artillery would mean even more deaths. What you are talking about is the short war illusion. But this is partly debunked by historians. Many people, knew that the war would be incredibly blood and likely not all that short. Even Molke the Elder said that the concept of these small wars he was winning was gone end and 'people's wars' would be the norm in the future. There were also the examples of the Crimea War and the Russo-Japanese War and the War of 1870 also showed that it could turn into a much bigger peoples war. Also, WW1 wasn't horrible because of trenches, but simply because modern war his horrible. Casualty rates in WW1 aren't that different from places like the Normandy in WW2. And that was evident in the Russo-Japanese War as well. The idea that WW1 trenches were some revolutionary thing that fundamentally changed warfare isn't really correct. What was 'revolutionary' about WW1 was the scale and the resources involved.

hef19898 3y ago

Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than. I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles on going to war at WW1. Sure, the Austrian approach to the Serbian situation was just plain stupid, as was Germany backing them. Bit it was totally understandable from their point of view. After all, back then, before the trench warfare hell started, everybod still thought it would something like back during Napoleon's days and in 1870 or the Prussian-Austrian war (people tend to overlook the fact Germany and Austria were not always close allies), you send ypur army, besiege some cities, meet in an open field battle, or multiple, the winner takes what he wants and the looser, including the population, accepts the outcome for the time being. Rinse and repeat. Still war, still bad, bad far from the hellscape modern turned out to be. WW1 was a true watershed in history, one we tend to fail fully appreciate as it is overshadowed by WW2 in every aspect.

panick21_ 3y ago
> Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than. No it wasn't. In fact, it took a massive amount of influence by Wilson himself to make it so. So much infect that Wilson actually was forced to promise a military alliance to France just so France would go along with it. Many influential figures in French were very well aware that the treaty was toothless. Foch being a leader of that group was absolutely convinced that the Ruhr region would have to be taken to insure French security, and he was right. At the same time in the US, the Republicans, who were totally shut out by Wilson also believed that the war should continue and Germany would have be totally defeated. Wilson was the problem. Wilson first refused to be part of the alliance. Second he then essentially forced the allies to accept the armistice based on his 14 points, something that he simply couldn't actually promise with France and Britain as 'allies'. French went along with it partly because they thought the armistice would put them in a better position as Germany was blockaded. Wilsons arrogance and his rejection of real alliance with France and Britain allowed the German to wedge themselves in between and get a favorable deal. The Wilson instead of fully embracing a version of the League of Nations lead by the victorious powers of US, France, Britain all allied together (as the UN became) and instead based everything on a notion of equality and collective security. A concept that was purely theoretical and most political scientist then or now didn't think it made sense. Wilson also was reluctant to put to much debt on Germany, while also firmly rejecting any debt based deals Britain proposed for collective debt forgiveness. And beyond that there was no effective vector put in place to punish Germany for not paying. > I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles Not sure what modern principles you are talking about. I am applying real politic principles that existed then too. > Napoleon's days The Napoleonic wars were horrible with a huge number of deaths. But still in a single day, Napoleonic battles had huge casualties. And lots and lots of people hard realized that the advances in artillery would mean even more deaths. What you are talking about is the short war illusion. But this is partly debunked by historians. Many people, knew that the war would be incredibly blood and likely not all that short. Even Molke the Elder said that the concept of these small wars he was winning was gone end and 'people's wars' would be the norm in the future. There were also the examples of the Crimea War and the Russo-Japanese War and the War of 1870 also showed that it could turn into a much bigger peoples war. Also, WW1 wasn't horrible because of trenches, but simply because modern war his horrible. Casualty rates in WW1 aren't that different from places like the Normandy in WW2. And that was evident in the Russo-Japanese War as well. The idea that WW1 trenches were some revolutionary thing that fundamentally changed warfare isn't really correct. What was 'revolutionary' about WW1 was the scale and the resources involved.