What century would that be? 1814-1914? Germany wasn’t even a nation until 1871, for Christ’s sake. During that same century, both France and the UK were actually the ones who could fairly lay claim the to title of “Most Bellicose Nation”. (USA is 2nd runner-up.)
You’re presumably aware of Russia turning a regional war into a World War by needlessly mobilizing against Austria-Hungary, right?
No, No , No…it’s all the Nazi’s fault…
Sorry, I’m slow today! Is this a whoosh?
Needlessly in what sense? As in not supporting an ally, Serbia, that was about to be dismembered by A-H despite having caved in completely to A-H’s ultimatum.
Note I am not defending Russia or any of the other powers - they had all successfully constructed a powder keg of interlocking treaties to sit on and were all happily puffing on their cigars. They all living on the edge but I’ve argued before that it was Germany that has to take the majority of the blame for turning a regional conflict into the Great War.
Just a quick look at the thread and I saw it as would the beer have been better if the Germans won WW1 
That goes without saying. But France won and we’ve been stuck with wine snobbery ever since.
That’s one way to look at it. But mostly I am objecting to CRSP’s use of the modifier “needlessly” applying to only Germany’s actions. From a certain standpoint, all of the Great Powers’ actions directly leading to the War were needless, not just Germany’s. Russia’s national integrity was not at stake when they threatened the Austro-Hungarians. Nor was Britain’s at stake when Germany invaded Belgium. France’s was after Germany mobilized, but they knew the risks when they agreed to an alliance with the Romanovs.
Personally, I would assign about a third of the blame to Germany, a third to Russia, and a third to Britain & France.
No, no. You’re both wrong. It would have been for the best if Belgium had conquered the Continent. 
Well…maybe.
The thing is that Germany gets now judged for WW1 by what happened in WW2.
It is sure, that the winner writes history in their view. But people forget that the other parties involved in WW1 where no angels, even by a long shot.
Germany was crucified for WW1, every other nation claims to be completely innocent and have absolutely nothing to do with what happened to Germany afterwards. When Germany lost the war it got raped, spit in the face and left to fend for itself.
Germany got up again and when the economy crashed in 1929 got striped again for everything they had by the French.
Things changed after WW2, the Allies (all except the Soviets) helped Germany to be rebuilt…aka the Berlin Airbridge…and become strong allies.
Germany became a member of Nato, EU… well one of the world powers these days… and all without war.
So, what is the difference between end of WW1 and WW2? Clearly what happened in WW2 was way worse then WW1. They moved on and the US told the other Allies not to do the same mistake again, which they asked for right after WW1, but the Allies of WW1 wanted to make an example of Germany – which was Versailles.
An alliance that was made necessary by the alliances already made by Germany, and resulting in the total political isolation of France after the Franco-Prussian war.
Look, you and I are just talking in circles here depending on what we feel is the truth.
You seem more convinced by the absolute truth of your arguments than I am of my owns, but in the end we’re just debating the very same points already debated on the Treaty of Versailles wiki page, **Historical assesments ** part, except with far less talent. Therefore I can only encourage people to go take a look there.
What happened to the Austrians? (I leave out the Hungarians - they had no great wish to see Serbia annexed.)
I can live with that.
…of cos, they claim, they had absolutly nothing to do with it…
I don’t want to open up a whole new discussion so let’s just say I believe you’re mistaken. You could try the the Wiki article on Reparations which gives an over view of the whole process.
Again this is a gross over simplification. Just to take one factor: After WW2, an issue for the western Allies was clearly the Soviet threat and the start of the Cold War was a major factor in the different treatment of West Germany post 1945 to post 1918.
Well, we were considering the actions of the Great Powers which transformed a regional war into a World War.
I had assumed that as Serbia and Austria-Hungary were the belligerents of that regional war, that they would be precluded from such a discussion.
An alliance that ensured that if Germany went to war with Russia (as it almost inevitably would at some point, as long as hothead Wilhelm II was calling the shots), it would also have to fight France at the same time. In hindsight, it seems that going with political isolation might have been a wiser course for the French. (Interestingly, if Wilhelm II had listened to Bismarck, Russia would have been, at worst, isolated themselves, and at best, allies of Germany.)
The only absolute truth of which I am convinced is that Germany was not some uniquely evil society. Everything thing else is up for discussion.
I like to point out this sentence from your cite to you: …a sum that many economists at the time deemed to be excessive
Of cos it is a simplification, no argument there. Historians argue about it, but the end of WW2 and the treatment of Germany then had something (maybe not the main factor) to do with how WW1 ended… and what happened afterwards.
no contribution here other than I just want to pop in to say that, every time I see this thread reappear in bold and at the top of the forum, I keep reading it as “World War II”
carry on!
I wouldn’t argue much with that. I’m no fan of any of those countries. But the context is somewhat different.
OK…I will take a stab.
Germany wins WWI say in early 1916. Russia is knocked out of the war in 1915. This erodes Frances will to fight and they sue for peace. England follows suit.
Now, Germany would not take peace without access to colonies. She would demand colonies from France/Denmark/Low Countries and push to aquire more of them. This puts Germany and England as opponents. England will do what she can to try to solidify enemies of Germany on the continent. I would imagine this would be France (again) as well as Italy. Italy should be alarmed at German strength and would most likely edge toward the British camp.
However, Italy will want colonies as well when Germany starts grabbing them and will be eyeing a weakened France which will also irritate England as well as Germany. I predict some conflicts if not a major war between Germany and England/Italyand possibly France in the 20th century.
Austia-Hungary will still have a tough time of it. I think she will still be torn apart by internal nationalistic forces. This will leave the Balkans a relative vacuum. Another source of tension between Germany and Italy/England. I envision many conflicts between Serbia/Greece/Romania etc during the 20th century as that gets straightened out.
Japan is still out there also wanting colonies. She will be eyeing areas. However, the colonies will not be as weak as some of the French/Danish ones will be German. Japan will also probably have nibbled some colonies away from France/Denmark etc…but I imagine the Chinese/Japanese war still goes pretty much as planned. England will not be weak in the area as she got out of WWI relatively unscathed and is alarmed and more determined to be strong.
The United States will look at this colony grabbing with disgust and alarm…but will probably not do much about it.
In short - I suspect the World might be ‘better off’ in not having a huge major war like WWII…but there will definitely be chills in the air throughout the 20th century. I also think that colonization will be much stronger in the 20th century as the new players with strength and vigor enter the colony game. Colonization will most likely still be going strong to this day.
South America could be interesting. With colonization going strong, I could see players trying to re-enter South America. However, this would concern the U.S. and so might not be tried with vigor.
The 3rd world will not be happy with this exploitation and will most likely have some major rebellions/nationalistic movements during the 20th century…but this would eventually be crushed.
Nukes will come along…a bit later…probably in the 60’s. This will curtail any major wars between the big powers.
Sea power will more emphasized in the militaries. Militarism will be more prevalent/in fashion even in the United States. No Vietnam or equivalent for the U.S. unless they get into the colony game which I don’t think they would do. The U.S. might be a thorn to the other major powers by trying to support 3rd world rebellions when they do happen.