[remstaling]

The side the USA was on was the good side, obviously.

[caseferter]

Germany did get most of the blame after the war. With a distance of more than 80 years it doesn't seem that obvious. Of cource, Great Britain and France where democratic countries, Austria-Hungary or Germany was not. But that doesn't with necessity mean that they where "good guys", and they still had millions of people under the boot in their colonies.

And if you like to see it from the point of american high school history lessons it's hardly a suprise - the US was on the other side after all.

On the other hand, with your line of thought the soviet unions where the "good guys" in WW2...

[onlineslotetes]

Wasn't is caused by British aggressors? They were obviously the bad guys, as always.

[unmalryAlalry]

Germany did some very bad moves (diplomacy of the iron fist, building of a naval fleet big enough to make Britain nervous) that put France and Britan very close. But that is one thing, and the other is that Germany is to blame.

IMHO, had Germany be better at diplomacy, she may have found herself fighting France and Russia, not France, Russia and Britain.

[fissasste]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Or told Austria to shut the fvck up and take care of their balkan business on their own rather than handing them carte blanche. Or respected Belgium´s neutrality.....

[Flistelib]

The U.S. was made sympathtic to the Entente cause by the persistent referrences to the Rape of Belgium by the "Huns."

[insightmike]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

It's why y'll seem to expect your politicians to be plaster saints too, I think.

Seeing as I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and am expecting to vote for Hillary in a couple of weeks when Virginia has its primarly, I guess I don't fall into that category then.

However, the German militarists had been pressing for an 'early war' to forestall Russian dominance- and Kaiser Wilhelm II had mental health issues. But then Tsar Nicholas was a mental incompetent easily persuaded by his wife, and the Turkish Sultan was borderline deranged. As for the House of Habsburg... and don't mention Alsace Lorraine and revanchists.

Of course the Brits were entirely blameless.

What have you done with the real Molly Bloom?

[maysubers]

Not sure how voluntary that was. I seem to recall they were starving.

[pKgGpUlF]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The U.S. was made sympathtic to the Entente cause by the persistent referrences to the Rape of Belgium by the "Huns." That and indiscriminate U-Boat war, which resulted in the deaths of American citizens and the loss of U.S. shipping.


The Zimmerman Telegram kinda helped too...

[maks_holi]

It was a stab in the back!

[drexigordiche]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The naval blockade of the Continent also played a significant role in denying resources to the German Empire... Indeed. When you population is starving to death and your last gasp offensive fails, there is nothing you can do.

[Ettiominiw]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, for some reason the American school system likes to espouse a good vs. evil narrative in just about everything. Nothing just "was" or had equal good and bad on each side. You don't get that stuff until late in high school, or, more likely college history classes. Is that how it was at your high school? Can you paraphrase some examples?

[ReginaPerss]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Is that how it was at your high school? Can you paraphrase some examples? It's horribly true. Read a book called, "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by Neil Postman.

[gambleingsites]

BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war.

[anconueys]

BTW, there was a good side to WWI . . . the Reds. We ended the war. You did? I thought you had to sign a humiliating seperate peace with the Germans after collapsing into anarchy.

[MpNelQTU]

Originally posted by BeBro
Wasn't is caused by British aggressors? They were obviously the bad guys, as always. Are you channeling Ned?

[Broker15015]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Are you channeling Ned? Somebody has to do it

[Tusethede]

Originally posted by Barnabas
It seems to me that unlike ww2 (in ww2 the allies were clearly the good guys and the axis the bad guys), Prove it. Good and Evil aren't proper concepts, don't use them in societal comparison.

[Elaltergephah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


somehow Im kind of doubting that our Euro friends delved deep into the causes of WW1 at an earlier age than we Yanks do high school - they can correct me here.

corrected

[Zfdeisde]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
somehow Im kind of doubting that our Euro friends delved deep into the causes of WW1 at an earlier age than we Yanks do high school - they can correct me here.
here they teach us these things on 8th grade, and 8th graders are 14.

Originally posted by molly bloom
In fact the German Offensives in 1918 had run out of steam- they were losing disproportionately large amounts of elite troops for very little ground or advantage gained. yes, but that was summer of '18. I was talking about October '18.

Originally posted by yaroslav
I do not think that it would have been easy for England to go and help France had Germany not invaded Belgium. The invasion of Belgium was a gambit: if Germany was able to reach Paris early enough, it would be a very good move, otherwise, very bad one. It ended being a very bad one, even if Germans were close to capture Paris.
england and france were allies after all. and england ruled the seas, but could they afford to let germany rule the continent? no, and to prevent that they needed france.

yes it was a gambit, but Paris was not the main price. main price was catch french army between hammer and anvil. and it allmost succeeded.