ljadw wrote:Your white-washing will convince noone :
Germany had no high moral grounds ,not in WWI not in WWII.
The facts are that before WWI,Germany was the only one with offensive plans (the other countries only were defending themselves).Germany forced AH to declare war on Serbia for something Germany was uninterested (Sarajevo),when this did not result in war with Russia,Germany declared war on Russia,and,when this did not result in war with France,Germany declared war on France,using as reason a pack of lies .It was also Germany who started in WWI air and naval attacks on British cities.And,let's not forget the German behaviour in Belgiumwhen it invaded this country .
In WWII : Germany invaded Poland,forcing the SU to follow,and,as Poland did not declare war on the SU,there was no reason for Britain and France to declare war on the SU .As in WWI,Germany started the air attacks on Polish cities,followed by attacks on Dutch and Belgian cities .For the rest,given the historical reality of Auschwitz,Treblinka,Maidanek,of the actions of the Einsatzkommandos, I am astonished that someone is still talking about German high moral grounds .
About the German plans : never heard of the Schlieffen plan ?
Oh, come on! "Only offensive plans were German?" How about Gallipoli? Was British "defending" by invading Turkey and Egypt? When you talk about WW1 you should note there were colony snatching in Africa and other parts of the world, not only fights in Europe.
Germany forced AH to declare war on Serbia???? That easily qualifies for the dumbest historical assertion I've ever read. NOBODY forced Austria-Hungary. Nobody. They declared war fully conscious and willingly against Serbia, after sending that bizzare ultimatum which Serbia complied almost fully - except for the essential extradition parts (which in diplomacy is akin to supporting a terrorist group). On the same grounds the U.S. sent forces to Afganistan - that's the same
casus belli as AH.
Germany did NOT want war with Russia at that particular moment, because the relations with France were not secured (meaning France was rattling the drums of war, wanting Alsace-Lorraine back). That's another shallow interpretation of yours.
The Czar allowed for partial mobilisation, which was interpreted as an intent of agression in Germany and most of the German leaders were puzzled. Yes, they did not believed that the Czar would mobilize his army, that he would go any length against Austria-Hungary and - as a consequence - against Germany.
After the partial mobilisation of the Russian Empire, Germany decrees its mobilisation and is soon followed by France. Why would France mobilize, yet there was no war between Russia and Germany? Nor any war against Austria-Hungary and Russia? Do you compute now why the Germans attacked France? They wanted a swift knockout blow, then they'd face the Russians full force (because they did not believe they could defeat Russia alone).
So the timetable is as follows:
- Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia
- Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary
- Germany declares war on Russia but attacks France first
- Russian military attacks both Germany and Austria-Hungary
Also, Germany started to attack the British cities using their Zeppelins because that was the only thing they could do after Jutland battle, when Royal Navy, although losing more ships than the Reich, imposed their superiority on the seas, effectively blocking any means of Germany of importing goods. Would you consider that starving a nation is "high moral ground" comparing to bombing their cities? Because German population was in effect on the brink of survival after British decision. That's why the Kaiser fell, after all. The starving population mutinied. They on par, at the same level of moral ground. It's "you do this, I do that".
Don't forget it was the Allies who first used gas in combat. Who, then, had the moral ground?
"Germany forced the SU to attack Poland?" I'm laughing on the floor. Why, poor Soviets were forced by Hitler to attack Poland by reasons unknown. He probably hypnotized them or blackmailed them somehow. That's why I used to write you were a troll - because I cannot imagine you being serious when posting a farce like this. Come on, I know you're better than that.
Yes, Germany attacked Polish and all other European countries cities they attacked, in the process of attacking and conquering them. They didn't, however, utilised they airforce as a means of flattening their enemy civilians to the ground as a (moronic) means of winning the war (which completely failed and was rather counter-productive and pushing the normal civilian population in the hands of National-Socialist propaganda). There's a difference between a military campaign and a strategic bombing campaign, you know. The latter is pants.
I see you're still pulling a leg, using controversy in your posts, by utilising knowledge
post-factum, which has been found AFTER the war, which cannot be seen as a real, true argument for "a high moral ground" of waging the war. You're probably trying to annoy me but I'm adamant on this and I'll continue to repeat until you get it: no Allied country could pretend that they were waging the war in order that Auschwitz, Treblinka, Maidanek not to happen. These are a post-war rationale, not previously known (or fully understood) during the war. Neither Churchill (which let Poland in Soviet claws after the war), nor Roosevelt (which sadly did not see the end of conflict) and especially not Stalin had any humanitarian reasons to wage war. THAT's whitewashing. I'm showing the true colors of the conflict.
What's up with Schlieffen plan? Do you think there are no sandbox military exercises in any military using scenarios they invade other countries? Everybody's military does that. Except the Chinese, of course, why they built a wall instead.
