Could the Western Allies have gotten a better border deal in exchange for other concessions to Stalin?

[ljadw]

besides it was better for the west that they were occupied by the Soviets

I see you are intent on selling that red herring again Good luck

Why should and could US occupy Romania and spend billions to restore the war destructions ?
The occupation of a country cost a lot of money ,besides the Soviet occupation of Romania (til 1958 ) was not a threat for the West .
After WW1 France and Britain could only station a small occupation force in Germany , why should US do better after 1945 (Britain was already broken ) ? The general slogan in the US after 1945 was : bring the boys home .And only 2 US divisions remained in Europe, US left Italy vry soon ,thus where should US find the money and manpower to occupy additional countries after 1945 ?

[Loïc]

a small occupation force...well maybe for US British Belgian and Italian troops who didn't stay a long time and/or very numerous in Germany
but that is another question for France, the French Army of the Rhine counted around 100 000 soldiers for the occupation, 200 000 occasionnally in 1921, the tripartite allied contingents were gradually reduced after Locarno and given the Rif War to 70 000 French 8000 British 8000 Belgians then 50 000 more 6000 and 6000 etc...until the evacuation in 1930

[ljadw]

a small occupation force...well maybe for US British Belgian and Italian troops who didn't stay a long time and/or very numerous in Germany
but that is another question for France, the French Army of the Rhine counted around 100 000 soldiers for the occupation, 200 000 occasionnally in 1921, the tripartite allied contingents were gradually reduced after Locarno and given the Rif War to 70 000 French 8000 British 8000 Belgians then 50 000 more 6000 and 6000 etc...until the evacuation in 1930

The French occupation forces were limited and this had as result that France occupied only a small part of Germany .In 1920 the BOAR was reduced to 13360 men and costed 300000 pound per month .
Germany was to great and there were to many Germans, to be occupied after WW1 .
A part of it was occupied by the West after 1945,but the West had not the forces to occupy the whole of Germany.
There were only 2 US divisions in Europe at the start of the Korean War .
The claim that somehow the West could force the Soviets to give up the countries they had liberated/occupied and could occupy these countries herself ,is a myth from Over There .
In 1945 the Soviets were considered as the good guys and no one in the US,Britain, France was willing to pay taxes for an occupation army in Eastern Europe .

[gebhk]

HI Ijadw

You have made up a red herring that by some divine dictate a Soviet-style occupation of every country east of the Rhine had to be implemented and if the Soviets didn't do it, the Americans would have to. You are now contorting yourself in circular arguments based on this faulty premise.

The Soviet Union wasn't occupying Romania from the goodness of its heart or because God had commanded it, but because it was necessary to vassalize the country sufficiently and to extract as much as possible in reparations; in short to exploit the country both immediately and in the long run - in exactly the same way that it did in Poland - supposedly an ally. No one and nothing would have been forcing the US to occupy Romania and rebuild it instead. If it did choose to help rebuild it, as it did in many parts of Europe, it would be for the same reason that international aid is by-and-large given - as an investment for future economic advantage.

There is absolutely no reason why the US would have to occupy Romania any more than it had to occupy Italy or France. If it did so it would be because there was some advantage to it.

[Huszar666]

I don't exactly understand, why the W.Allies would have to send occupation forces to Poland and CSR (both Allies in every sense of the word), or even Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria. Contrary to what the West seems to think, all three countries are well able to govern themselves. The problems comes, when the West thinks, it would need to tell them, what, how, and when to do, and send a governor there. Or try to.
Do you really think, TWO US Divsions were enough to occupy GERMANY?!? What does it even matter, if there were 2 US-Division in Europe in 1953?!? Nothing.
The US (not even talking about UK and France) had well the means to leave 20 divisions in Europe, if it needed to.
Even with "occupying" Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, there was no need to.
If the W.Allies somehow managed to reach Central Europe before the soviets (there was no other possibility to be the new overlords of Central Europe), all three would turn coat even faster, than in OTL. Hungary was impatiently waiting for the W.Allies to reach the Hungarian border, so they could change allies. In contrast to OTL October 1944, it would have been successful. Same with Romania - although they managed to turn coats rather efficiently. Same with Bulgaria.
So, why, pray tell, should the US "occupy" the territories of their allies?
Even, if they weren't considered allies (Romania and Bulgaria were, more or less), there simply isn't any need to. There won't be any pro-Axis partisan movement in either of them.

[ljadw]

HI Ijadw

You have made up a red herring that by some divine dictate a Soviet-style occupation of every country east of the Rhine had to be implemented and if the Soviets didn't do it, the Americans would have to. You are now contorting yourself in circular arguments based on this faulty premise.

The Soviet Union wasn't occupying Romania from the goodness of its heart or because God had commanded it, but because it was necessary to vassalize the country sufficiently and to extract as much as possible in reparations; in short to exploit the country both immediately and in the long run - in exactly the same way that it did in Poland - supposedly an ally. No one and nothing would have been forcing the US to occupy Romania and rebuild it instead. If it did choose to help rebuild it, as it did in many parts of Europe, it would be for the same reason that international aid is by-and-large given - as an investment for future economic advantage.

There is absolutely no reason why the US would have to occupy Romania any more than it had to occupy Italy or France. If it did so it would be because there was some advantage to it.

You forget the essential thing : Romania was an enemy ,as were Hungary and Bulgaria, thus they had to be occupied and indoctrinated ,if the Soviets did not do it, the West ( = the US ) would have to do it .
It was totally impossible in 1945 that the heirs of Antonescu and Horthy would continue to rule Romania and Hungary,because 1945 was a year where left wingers dominated Britain, France, Belgium ,the Netherlands .And the US .!
If the SU and the West did not create a new society in Romania and Hungary , the old society would continue and this was anathema.The left wingers tried to create a new society in Western Europe and in the US ,they would not let continue the old society in the Balkans .
And, if they were not occupied and demilitarized, the risk was very great that they would fight again against each other for Transylvania ,something no one wanted .
A purge was needed and a purge meant occupation .
Japan was purged and occupied ,thus also Hitler's allies .In Japan education was purged and Marxists got free play, Zaibatsu were disbanded ,the big landowner class was eliminated .
The same would happen in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria ,if not by the Soviets,it would be by the Western left wing rulers .
There were big nationalizations in France and Britain, there would be big nationalizations in Romania ,Hungary and Bulgaria .

[ljadw]

I don't exactly understand, why the W.Allies would have to send occupation forces to Poland and CSR (both Allies in every sense of the word), or even Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria. Contrary to what the West seems to think, all three countries are well able to govern themselves. The problems comes, when the West thinks, it would need to tell them, what, how, and when to do, and send a governor there. Or try to.
Do you really think, TWO US Divsions were enough to occupy GERMANY?!? What does it even matter, if there were 2 US-Division in Europe in 1953?!? Nothing.
The US (not even talking about UK and France) had well the means to leave 20 divisions in Europe, if it needed to.
Even with "occupying" Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, there was no need to.
If the W.Allies somehow managed to reach Central Europe before the soviets (there was no other possibility to be the new overlords of Central Europe), all three would turn coat even faster, than in OTL. Hungary was impatiently waiting for the W.Allies to reach the Hungarian border, so they could change allies. In contrast to OTL October 1944, it would have been successful. Same with Romania - although they managed to turn coats rather efficiently. Same with Bulgaria.
So, why, pray tell, should the US "occupy" the territories of their allies?
Even, if they weren't considered allies (Romania and Bulgaria were, more or less), there simply isn't any need to. There won't be any pro-Axis partisan movement in either of them.

The point is not if they could govern themselves or not , but that the left wingers in the West would not allow the reconstruction of the prewar society in Eastern Europe .Italy also changed from side and declared that it was now an ally .The result was a left wing government of communists, socialists and DC and the end of the monarchy and the constitution of a republic .Thousands of people were killed and tens of thousands were purged .The situation would be the same in Hungary ,but much worse .
Western Europe and the US were governed in 1945 by Cultural Marxists .
And without Western occupation forces in Eastern Europe, no one could prevent the Soviets of taking over these countries .
Stalin would never allow the presence of anti communist countries at his borders .

[Huszar666]

reconstruction of the prewar society in Eastern Europe

I don't really understand, how the old, pre-war society in Russia (it was the same pre- and post-war, or do you mean the pre-ww1-society?) would be reconstructed if the W. Allies reached Central Europe before the soviets.

You forget the essential thing : Romania was an enemy ,as were Hungary and Bulgaria, thus they had to be occupied and indoctrinated ,if the Soviets did not do it, the West ( = the US ) would have to do it .

Oh, probably no one told Stalin, Churchill and FDR/Truman, that those were enemies previously. BOTH Romania and Bulgaria were considered late addition to their own camp, with BOTH having fought beside the soviets. Bulgaria has the distinction of being the only ex-Axis country, that has emerged with MORE territory, than it had pre-war. Even the unquestionably allied Poles and CSR had LOST territories.
For indoctrination, you don't need divisions, you only need a couple of collaborators and "advisors". I doubt, the W.Allies (US) were so pressed for personal, they couldn't send a couple of hundred people to each country.

It was totally impossible in 1945 that the heirs of Antonescu and Horthy would continue to rule Romania and Hungary,because 1945 was a year where left wingers dominated Britain, France, Belgium ,the Netherlands .And the US .!

Antonescu was a nobody in the hierarchy, the real Head of State was King Michael. In the same vein, the Head of State was the quasi-king Horthy, not one of the many Prime Ministers - and certainly not Szálasi, the leader of an unimportant little party.
BOTH countries were monarchies, and the W.Allies mostly didn't care, if a country was a monarchy or not. The Tenno wasn't touched, and neither was Victor Emmanuel III/Umberto II. Or whatever the name of Thailand's king was.
BOTH Michael I and Horthy had quite good connections to the West - strangely, from the five countries you mentioned, three were, and still are monarchies - so why on Earth would they be removed? Neither the Iron Guard, Antonescu's or Szálasi's guys (the latter were in the minority as it was) had ANY chance to come back after the defeat of their "sponsors".

[ljadw]

King Michael being the real head of state ?
Do you believe what you are saying ?
And Szalasi was more than the leader of an important little party :after Horthy was eliminated, Szalasi ruled Hungary and his influence was greater than you claim :after he became dictator, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Hungarians were arrested and transported to Auschwitz,with the help of the Hungarian administration who obeyed Szalasi .
And about monarchies : the American Revolution has been identified with hostility to the principe of monarchism .
US could have blocked the referendum in Italy or have helped the royalist winning . They did not .

[Huszar666]

King Michael being the real head of state ?
Do you believe what you are saying ?
And Szalasi was more than the leader of an important little party :after Horthy was eliminated, Szalasi ruled Hungary and his influence was greater than you claim :after he became dictator, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Hungarians were arrested and transported to Auschwitz,with the help of the Hungarian administration who obeyed Szalasi .
And about monarchies : the American Revolution has been identified with hostility to the principe of monarchism .
US could have blocked the referendum in Italy or have helped the royalist winning . They did not .

1, yes, a king is usually the real head of state. Even the "kings" and "queens" elected for 4-5 years nowdays are that
2, dude, I'm Hungarian. Szálasi was the head of one of the marginally important far-right parties. Without the Germans and their tanks, he would be a nobody. He was just that even without his preferred ideology just kicked in the balls. Even IF it was a concern, he or any other small far-left party would gain any meaningful returns in the next election, they could have been simply barred to participate. You don't need a dozen divisions to bar a party to bar a party from participation in an election. You need ONE bureaucrat.
3, I don't remember the US abolishing monarchies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, (neutral Sweden), Italy, Thailand, or Japan. Or Britain, for that matter. Or Egypt, Iraq, Persia, or Saud-Arabia. There were four monarchies abolished after ww2: Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, all done by the reds. (Italy is an outlier, after the king lost face with breaking his word, so he was kicked out by his own people. But NOT by the US!)

[Loïc]

Actually the US, well to name clearly who was behind that, the Roosevelt's administration, wished to convert whole Europe in banana republics and confederations, hating Germany despite it was question without any scruples to let Alsace and Austria to the former 3rd Reich, pathologically hostile to France as power and why not after Alsace given to its first nazi occupier power, offering to its former second occupier power Italy to annex their former southeastern zone of occupation in France, and a deep contempt against Belgium and the King of the Belgians,
but as Roosevelt had excellent personal relations with the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, it was planned to establish a State of Lotharingia by gathering Fanders Alsace Lorraine, part, to not say the whole Belgium, as a consequence the disappeatance of this last one as state and his monarchy, and Palatinat merged under the crown of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, it was the future geopolitical map for Western Europe
for Eastern Europe a confederation gathering Poland Czechoslovakia and if possible adding Lituania and Hungary and another for the Balkans

[ljadw]

King Michael being the real head of state ?
Do you believe what you are saying ?
And Szalasi was more than the leader of an important little party :after Horthy was eliminated, Szalasi ruled Hungary and his influence was greater than you claim :after he became dictator, hundreds of thousands of Jewish Hungarians were arrested and transported to Auschwitz,with the help of the Hungarian administration who obeyed Szalasi .
And about monarchies : the American Revolution has been identified with hostility to the principe of monarchism .
US could have blocked the referendum in Italy or have helped the royalist winning . They did not .

1, yes, a king is usually the real head of state. Even the "kings" and "queens" elected for 4-5 years nowdays are that
2, dude, I'm Hungarian. Szálasi was the head of one of the marginally important far-right parties. Without the Germans and their tanks, he would be a nobody. He was just that even without his preferred ideology just kicked in the balls. Even IF it was a concern, he or any other small far-left party would gain any meaningful returns in the next election, they could have been simply barred to participate. You don't need a dozen divisions to bar a party to bar a party from participation in an election. You need ONE bureaucrat.
3, I don't remember the US abolishing monarchies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, (neutral Sweden), Italy, Thailand, or Japan. Or Britain, for that matter. Or Egypt, Iraq, Persia, or Saud-Arabia. There were four monarchies abolished after ww2: Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, all done by the reds. (Italy is an outlier, after the king lost face with breaking his word, so he was kicked out by his own people. But NOT by the US!)

1 A king is a figure head , nothing more, otherwise it will be over for him .
2 The fact remains that when Horthy was eliminated, the Hungarian administration switched its loyalty to Szalasi .
The fact is also that there was a great danger for a civil war in an unoccupied Hungary or a war with Romania .
3 The US could have saved Vittorio Emmanuele . They did not , but a few years later they saved the Democrazia Christiana .
After the Civil War ,US supported the Mexican republican Juarez against the emperor Maximilian ( an Austrian ) ,because the US were hostile to monarchy .
The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Norway, Denmark were allies of the US in WW2 and Egypt, Iraq, Iran and KSA were not occupied by the US .
About Iran : you know what Carters ambassador in Iran said about Khomeini ? He said that he was a new Gandhi .
Why ?Because the ambassador was stupid (as the man who appointed him ) and because for the ambassador a president was better than a king .
If after ww2 Romania and Hungary were not occupied by the USSR,also not occupied by the US and both were fighting against each other, what would the US have done ?
If Szalasi was ruling Hungary after WW2 and was attacked by a liberal Romanian ruler, what would the US have done ?

[Loïc]

in Mexico the US supported Juarez only because they were rather hostile to France and Austrian ally (more than an Emperor a 8000 Austro-Hungarian-Polish Brigade + Empress's Belgian Regiment + Khedive's Egyptian Sudanese Battalion) than hostile to the monarchy, and for them the US imperialism is obviously much better in Latin American than the French Spanish British Dutch Danish ones
Mexico was already an Empire and a monarchy before that, and being a republic having suffered 55% of its territory annexed by the US imperialism

and they were not hostiles to maintain as monarchy the last Empire and Emperor of the World who attacked them and only one responsible and cause of the US participation in WWII

But the US were fully hostile to the Belgian monarchy and State
The hostile attitude of President Roosevelt towards Belgium
Roosevelt is favorable to the formation of a kind of Lotharingia, for the benefit of Luxembourg. He does not wish to restore the territorial integrity of Belgium, France and Germany, because of the personal hostility he maintains towards the authorities of these countries, in particular towards General de Gaulle...
(...)
He discussed with Churchill the need to transform Luxembourg into a buffer state, to which Alsace-Lorraine and the north of France would be added. He does not hesitate, in the rest of the conversation, to suggest the dismantling of Germany and France, as well as to express doubts about the future of Belgium because of the attitude of the king. .
Roosevelt is inclined to consider the attitude of Leopold III as the betrayal of a personal friendship which explains why he will never forgive the King of the Belgians for his attitude.
(...)
Roosevelt and Hopkins again attack Belgium and its king in a very harsh way, as well as France and de Gaulle
they would certainly have offered the kingdom of Belgium to the Grand Duchess, to the detriment of Leopold III, if she had entered into their views. The purpose of these discussions is to sound out the Luxembourg authorities as to the attitude they would adopt if the Anglo-Saxon powers officially proposed to Luxembourg the annexation of important territories to the detriment of several neighboring countries (Germany, Belgium, France)! Neither Bech nor the Grand Duchess provided any arguments in favor of the project, quite the contrary. In London, Bech maintained excellent relations with the Belgian government in exile and Free France, and had no annexationist aim with regard to these countries.
(...)
Roosevelt also probes British personalities about the territorial future of Luxembourg. In June 1942, during an official mission to Washington, Oliver Lyttelton, a friend of Churchill, who had been appointed Minister of Production and member of the British War Cabinet a few weeks ago, met the President for the first time. One evening, he talks to him about Belgium, a country divided between Walloons and Flemish who can no longer live together. Lyttelton is embarrassed to be the president's interlocutor on this subject. To which Roosevelt adds: “After the war, we should make two states, one known as Walloonia and one as Flamingia, and we should amalgamate Luxembourg with Flamengia. What do you say to that? »
Upon his return to Britain, Lyttelton reports his conversation to Anthony Eden. Eden believes in a joke and then remains incredulous when Lyttelton affirms that Roosevelt was very serious. Eden, on March 13, 1943, was confirmed, from the mouth of the president himself, of the need to create a new state called "Wallonia" formed by the union of Wallonia, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine and a part of northern France.
(...)
Roosevelt was not discouraged, however, as he broached the subject again with his Secretary of State Cordell Hull on October 5 and 6, 1943, shortly before Hull left for the Moscow conference. Regarding the future of Germany, he is in favor of a division into several states. About our regions, “Mr Roosevelt said there was not likely to be any trouble over the restoration of Netherlands or the Scandinavian* countries, but that Belgium was likely to present difficulties. Apart, he said, from the equivocal position of King Leopold, then a prisoner of the Germans, who had British support because Churchill believed in the restoration of monarchies but who might cause trouble with regard to the Belgian Government-in-exile, Belgium was an artificial, bilingual state with the Walloons and Flemihs traditionally at odds with each other. The President mentioned, in this connection, a German study made in 1940 proposing a federal union of Alsace, Lorraine, Luxemburg, and the two parts of Belgium.

Les relations diplomatiques entre le gouvernement Belge de Londres et les Etats-Unis (1940-1944)
Thierry Grosbois
Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 2001/2-3

*the "Scandinavian countries" concerns only Norway given that Sweden is a neutral unoccupied country and Denmark a neutral occupied country who didn't need a restoration

[gebhk]

Or whatever the name of Thailand's king was.

Ananda Mahidol (King Rama VIII). Interestingly in the context of this discussion, when Ananda Mahidol died in 1946, his successor, Bhumibol Adulyadej (King Rama IX) was helped onto the throne by the US who, it is argued, saw the monarchy as a useful bulwark against the spread of communism. More interesting still, when Thailand's wartime dictator and enthusistic admirer of Benito Mussolini and Italian Fascism returned as prime minister less than three years after the end of WW2, no one seemingly batted an eyelid in the US.

[ljadw]

in Mexico the US supported Juarez only because they were rather hostile to France and Austrian ally (more than an Emperor a 8000 Austro-Hungarian-Polish Brigade + Empress's Belgian Regiment + Khedive's Egyptian Sudanese Battalion) than hostile to the monarchy, and for them the US imperialism is obviously much better in Latin American than the French Spanish British Dutch Danish ones
Mexico was already an Empire and a monarchy before that, and being a republic having suffered 55% of its territory annexed by the US imperialism

and they were not hostiles to maintain as monarchy the last Empire and Emperor of the World who attacked them and only one responsible and cause of the US participation in WWII

But the US were fully hostile to the Belgian monarchy and State
The hostile attitude of President Roosevelt towards Belgium
Roosevelt is favorable to the formation of a kind of Lotharingia, for the benefit of Luxembourg. He does not wish to restore the territorial integrity of Belgium, France and Germany, because of the personal hostility he maintains towards the authorities of these countries, in particular towards General de Gaulle...
(...)
He discussed with Churchill the need to transform Luxembourg into a buffer state, to which Alsace-Lorraine and the north of France would be added. He does not hesitate, in the rest of the conversation, to suggest the dismantling of Germany and France, as well as to express doubts about the future of Belgium because of the attitude of the king. .
Roosevelt is inclined to consider the attitude of Leopold III as the betrayal of a personal friendship which explains why he will never forgive the King of the Belgians for his attitude.
(...)
Roosevelt and Hopkins again attack Belgium and its king in a very harsh way, as well as France and de Gaulle
they would certainly have offered the kingdom of Belgium to the Grand Duchess, to the detriment of Leopold III, if she had entered into their views. The purpose of these discussions is to sound out the Luxembourg authorities as to the attitude they would adopt if the Anglo-Saxon powers officially proposed to Luxembourg the annexation of important territories to the detriment of several neighboring countries (Germany, Belgium, France)! Neither Bech nor the Grand Duchess provided any arguments in favor of the project, quite the contrary. In London, Bech maintained excellent relations with the Belgian government in exile and Free France, and had no annexationist aim with regard to these countries.
(...)
Roosevelt also probes British personalities about the territorial future of Luxembourg. In June 1942, during an official mission to Washington, Oliver Lyttelton, a friend of Churchill, who had been appointed Minister of Production and member of the British War Cabinet a few weeks ago, met the President for the first time. One evening, he talks to him about Belgium, a country divided between Walloons and Flemish who can no longer live together. Lyttelton is embarrassed to be the president's interlocutor on this subject. To which Roosevelt adds: “After the war, we should make two states, one known as Walloonia and one as Flamingia, and we should amalgamate Luxembourg with Flamengia. What do you say to that? »
Upon his return to Britain, Lyttelton reports his conversation to Anthony Eden. Eden believes in a joke and then remains incredulous when Lyttelton affirms that Roosevelt was very serious. Eden, on March 13, 1943, was confirmed, from the mouth of the president himself, of the need to create a new state called "Wallonia" formed by the union of Wallonia, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine and a part of northern France.
(...)
Roosevelt was not discouraged, however, as he broached the subject again with his Secretary of State Cordell Hull on October 5 and 6, 1943, shortly before Hull left for the Moscow conference. Regarding the future of Germany, he is in favor of a division into several states. About our regions, “Mr Roosevelt said there was not likely to be any trouble over the restoration of Netherlands or the Scandinavian* countries, but that Belgium was likely to present difficulties. Apart, he said, from the equivocal position of King Leopold, then a prisoner of the Germans, who had British support because Churchill believed in the restoration of monarchies but who might cause trouble with regard to the Belgian Government-in-exile, Belgium was an artificial, bilingual state with the Walloons and Flemihs traditionally at odds with each other. The President mentioned, in this connection, a German study made in 1940 proposing a federal union of Alsace, Lorraine, Luxemburg, and the two parts of Belgium.

Les relations diplomatiques entre le gouvernement Belge de Londres et les Etats-Unis (1940-1944)
Thierry Grosbois
Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains 2001/2-3

*the "Scandinavian countries" concerns only Norway given that Sweden is a neutral unoccupied country and Denmark a neutral occupied country who didn't need a restoration

This proves that FDR had been sleeping in the lessons of geography :he proposed to amalgamate Flanders with Luxemburg, while both had and have no common border .
Wilson was not better,even worse : on 11 February 1918,he labeled the war as a war of emancipation from the threat and attempted mastery of selfish groups of autocratic rulers ,while reality was
A that the German decision to start WW1 in August 1914 was not made by a group of autocratic rulers ,but by the groups that ruled Germany ( not autocratically ) with the consent and support of the German socialists and the catholic party (Zentrum ) who together had the majority in parliament (the SPD was the strongest party in Germany )
B that the decision from Austria and Hungary to enter the war at the side of Germany was made because of a very strong German pressure and that the Hungarian PM (Tisza ) opposed the declaration of war to Russia .
C that the Tsar (a figure head ) had tried to avert as much as possible the threat of war .
D that the populations of the countries that entered the war supported wholeheartedly their rulers .