Romanticization of the Central Powers?

[melanie]

I still don't understand many people's desire to rehabilitate the Central Powers of WWI. I'm glad the Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs and Ottomans are gone and only want to view them from a distance.



I guess men in feathered hats and pretty princesses are more interesting for the popular memory than the mass murders by the Kaiser's Reich in German South-West Africa?

[stevep]

Sept 14, 2022 9:33:18 GMT melanie said:

I still don't understand many people's desire to rehabilitate the Central Powers of WWI. I'm glad the Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs and Ottomans are gone and only want to view them from a distance.



I guess men in feathered hats and pretty princesses are more interesting for the popular memory than the mass murders by the Kaiser's Reich in German South-West Africa?

  Possibly partly they think the CPs have the best chance of winning quickly and hence avoiding the bulk of the bloodshed of the conflict along with the idea that a Germany which won in WWI wouldn't degenerated into some insanity like the Nazis.  Also that without deep thinking about it they think the sort of German economic empire in continental Europe that would result would come to resemble the modern EU in terms of providing [for the moment anyway] economic stability inside Europe.

[American hist]

While I’m not going to argue with which side was right Or wrong during World War, it is interesting to wonder if the central powers could have won the great war and what would be the outcome of a significant major power victory. The Great war was known to end all wars. Instead, it started another big fight. They are known as ww2. In many respects, the first world war began the modern age we know of it today of contemporary technology and decaying empires dealing with colonial unrest.

The times before the great war or even during the conflict can allow someone to think of a bygone era of imperialism, patriotism, and the remnants of the 19th-century world of progress, monarchy, class consciousness, and hope. If the allies had lost, the world war won rather than an uneasy victory in actual history, and the British Empire, along with her allies, would have declined much sooner than in reality. Some of the British holdings would be granted independence, such as Ireland, while others would be annexed to the German victors. The among of territories gained would, of course, vary on what at

(”Central power romanticism “)

The victories are right from the history book and are perhaps guilty of the harsh restrictions from the treaty of Versailles. It is also interesting to imagine an alternative outcome if the Germans had won the Great War. While the British empire would decline, perhaps the German Empire would be Stronger. The germans, in many ways, were the most prepared of the great powers during the first world and second Wars, so there is an amount of feeling to reward those who were best prepared for those best prepared for a Cataclysm of what humans had feared And hoped for.

The red baron was their best ace during ww1, and Germany had not only to face Russia but France and German simultaneously while the rest of the world would turn against the German people again. The Allies that Germany had were not the equivalent of the might of the french, Russian, or American allied powers musted. In other ways, it's romantic to lose, provided it was a Nobel enough cause

[Max Sinister]

Is it just the colorful uniforms and the impressive crowns of their monarchs and such?

Reminds me of a historical joke: After WW1, Count Bobby tells his friend Baron Mucki: "We had such a beautiful army - the kaiserjägers, hussars, dragoons <long list> - and what does our foolish government do with it? - They send it into a war!"

[stevep]

Sept 17, 2022 14:39:41 GMT American hist said:

While I’m not going to argue w side was right Or wrong during World War, it is interesting to wonder if the central powers could have won the great war and what would be the outcome of a significant major power victory. The Great war was known to end all wars. Instead, it started another big fight. They are known as ww2. In many respects, the first world war began the modern age we know of it today of contemporary technology and decaying empires dealing with colonial unrest.

  A lot would have depended on the circumstances of the CP victory but even from September 1914 German plans were including major annexations, including parts of Belgium and all its colonial empire.

The times before the great war or even during the conflict can allow someone to think of a bygone era of imperialism, patriotism, and the remnants of the 19th-century world of progress, monarchy, class consciousness, and hope. If the allies had lost, the world war won rather than an uneasy victory in actual history, and the British Empire, along with her allies, would have declined much sooner than in reality. Some of the British holdings would be granted independence, such as Ireland, while others would be annexed to the German victors. The among of territories gained would, of course, vary on what at

  Well hope definitely suffered from the horrors of WWI but I fear it would have been worse if the militaristic powers had won.  Depending on the type of victory I wouldn't rely on Ireland gaining its independence because a defeated Britain, denied its now crushed continental allies would be a lot more determined that any of Ireland is in hostile hands as it would be too much of a risk.  [Alternatively an early German victory would probably prevent the 1916 coup attempt and the harsh handling of it by the authorities].  Again depending on how total [or not] the German victory was as to whether or not they would retain their 1914 colonies, let alone make the massive gains they desired.  It could be also that the much greater threat would draw at least the more developed parts of the empire, especially but no solely the dominions together for mutual support.

(”Central power romanticism “)

The victories are right from the history book and are perhaps guilty of the harsh restrictions from the treaty of Versailles. It is also interesting to imagine an alternative outcome if the Germans had won the Great War. While the British empire would decline, perhaps the German Empire would be Stronger. The germans, in many ways, were the most prepared of the great powers during the first world and second Wars, so there is an amount of feeling to reward those who were best prepared for those best prepared for a Cataclysm of what humans had feared And hoped for.

  It has been argued that the Versailles treaty was harsh enough to anger the Germans but not harsh enough to stop them starting another war.  There is little doubt that if Germany had won then the treaty would have been a lot harsher than Versailles was - probably something like the one inflicted on communist Russia early in 1918. 

   They were better prepared for war because they were more militaristic and also more eager for war than most of the other powers.  There was still a lot of accuracy in the old comment about Prussia - which overwhelmingly dominated imperial Germany - being an army with a state rather than the other way around.

The red baron was their best ace during ww1, and Germany had not only to face Russia but France and German simultaneously while the rest of the world would turn against the German people again. The Allies that Germany had were not the equivalent of the might of the french, Russian, or American allied powers musted. In other ways, it's romantic to lose, provided it was a Nobel enough cause

  Do you mean Russia again here or Britain?  The prime reason for the massive alliances that eventually defeated Germany in both wars was the German reliance on military strength rather than diplomacy to obtain their aim.

[melanie]

stevep, Max Sinister, how long could the new monarchial puppet states that Imperial Germany planned to create - Wilhelm II's brother-in-law was earmarked to be King of Finland, for example - have lasted?

Sooner or later, there will be increasing problems with local nationalists.

[stevep]

Sept 17, 2022 22:36:33 GMT melanie said:

stevep , Max Sinister , how long could the new monarchial puppet states that Imperial Germany planned to create - Wilhelm II's brother-in-law was earmarked to be King of Finland, for example - have lasted?

Sooner or later, there will be increasing problems with local nationalists.

  I think it would have depended on the circumstances.  If a monarch managed to naturalize his dynasty, like many did in the Balkans then quite possible that they could survive provided that something like the USSR doesn't come along and remove them.  This would assume their managed to start navigating a path of following the interests of their people rather than Berlin which could of course be risky for them.  However such a commitment could help them engender loyalty in turn among their people.

  Also how long the German empire lasts and how it falls.  If Wilhelm were to die and a more intelligent successor came along its possible that the imperial dynasty could survive in Germany itself although with much less action power.  However given how rigid German control is likely to be with a late war German victory its going to be a rough ride for a lot of people.  A hell of a lot could happen in any number of directions.  I can't see such an empire maintaining dictatorial control over so many people until the present day however.

[melanie]

Thank you stevep, I should note that my great-grandfather was left permanently disabled by his service in the Great War. He and his mates who served alongside him would have regarded the sentimental defeatism of songs such as "And The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" with utter contempt.

[lordroel]

melanie, no need to tag members who are already in a thread just to get a answer.

[melanie]

Sorry, my Lord.

I just think stating "war is immoral!" when faced with atrocious regimes, whether the Kaiser's Reich in German South-West Africa, or Hitlerism, is appalling and itself immoral.

in 1990, as he represented my state in the Australian Senate, I wrote a letter to Senator Sid Spindler criticising him and his party, the Australian Democrats, for their cowardice and moral weakness in the face of a fascist dictator's military aggression in the Persian Gulf.

I got no reply.

[lordroel]

Sept 20, 2022 16:41:14 GMT melanie said:

Sorry, my Lord.

I just think stating "war is immoral!" when faced with atrocious regimes, whether the Kaiser's Reich in German South-West Africa, or Hitlerism, is appalling and itself immoral.

All wars should not be Romanticize, another example would be the US Civil War i think.

[simon darkshade]

I have a cultural soft spot for the Habsburgs and remember watching A Fall of Eagles and feeling a bit sorry for Wilhelm II.

However, when it comes down to brass tacks, the Huns were the bad guys and the aggressors in the Great War. No side had clean hands, but they kicked things off and they raped Belgium. The things done in the name of frightfulness were terrible. In the end, they reaped the whirlwind.

[American hist]

If people can defend the allies during the great war, then they should be allowed to support the central powers. In my opinion, I don't think there should be arguments to say which side was morally right or wrong, as historians try not to debate ethics. I had believed in my schoolboy days that had the driver not missed his turn, world war I would have butterflied away, but given the climate of power, a system of tangled alliances would have clashed once a spark began. Had the great war not existed, the empires would have lived to this day with their colonies and without a lost generation, as I would have preferred a world without a great war. However, the War to end all wars onley allowed one great war to have a second great war that redefined generations to come from its effects.

The allies shouldn't be immune from criticism for their decisions and their choice of leaders; name a couple of disastrous and inhumane decisions by the allied command would be, first and foremost, Gallipoli, Sommes, the Italian theater, and mass concri[tion with next to no training of allied troops sent out as soon as they would be expended in a bloody offensive war of little logic while the germans were well defended in their entrenchments incompetence

A book I strongly recommend anyone to read is the The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I, Which argues that the allowed leadership was corrupt from the top bottom and its leaders, particularly its military leaders as incompetent. This book points out why the germans were winning the war all along and the British and french were spoonfed lies just to keep the public enthusiastic enough to stay in the fight while the reality was far from the propaganda lies of the allied war machine. The lies we grew up with in the great war While a short reference this teaspoon doesn't compare there were, even more, lies to the story
The five great allied lies purely fabricated by the allies In reality, the British shelled out cities too (though signifcal=tly fewer instances )despite these being allied the British stated they fought for Belgium souveighty as a nation or better yet stated for its existence as a country. www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/678919 I've noticed that Russian world war I war crimes are rarely discussed. research.gold.ac.uk/11072/1/HIS_Watson2014.pdf

To add more on the allies, there was still squabbling about which nation earned the spoils, and Italy is an example of how the allied manipulation led her on and made her think things that were not true.

However, The germans nonetheless committed war crimes. While the allied government censured potential allied war crime charges, the allies' army remained primarily on allied territory and rarely acted as occupiers, which allowed less potential for war crimes to be committed. As for german unrestricted submarine warfare, after a while, the germans stopped after Woodrow Wilson told them to stop History of Germans unrestricted submarine warfare

However, the difference between a submarine blockade and a surface blockade is merchants can’t usually spot submarines because they are underwater. I rarely have noticed general german sympathy for the great war unless when it came to protesting of the harsh terms of the treaty dictated by the allies. However, as the public has become more aware of a counterfactual possibility, Wilson's popularity has plummeted. In the franco Prussian war, the germans were not seen as the bad guys as it was a short war, and the germans became victorious though I wonder how the allies would have been portrayed after a german ww1 victory. Some fairly point out the result of the great war allowed Germany to resort to nazism, giving up their freedoms in exchange for a dictator. However, the allied agitators were wisely sent out to Australia, Canada, America, or other parts of the french empire. The Germans, however, couldn't send the agitators away as it’s pepstruggled to find stability in their excess democracy known as the democratic Weimar Republic


disclaimer

I don't believe german war crimes should be swept under the rug; German militarism, and Austria's hungry are more responsible of the powers and Russia for starting the great war.

[lordroel]

Nov 24, 2022 19:28:29 GMT American hist said:

If people can defend the allies during the great war, then they should be allowed to support the central powers.

simon darkshade , said it well in a previous post on a now locked thread:

It is useful to note that the mention of German war crimes in the Great War was not limited to the killing of civilians in France and Belgium under the pretext of responding to francs-tireurs, which whilst very problematic under the laws of the time was not quite on the verge of a war crime, but rather included mention of the destruction of significant swathes of France during the retreats of 1917 and 1918. Further to that can be added the Rape of Belgium, murder of civilians, pillage, unrestricted submarine warfare and the bombardments of Scarborough and Whitby; the latter two were very much contrary to established laws of war/IHL even at that stage.

This is why i do not allow the defense of Germany in a historical setting, if you want to discuses Germany in a What If ore post about it for Historical reason, i have no problem with it.

[American hist]

Nov 24, 2022 19:51:39 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 24, 2022 19:28:29 GMT American hist said:

If people can defend the allies during the great war, then they should be allowed to support the central powers.

simon darkshade , said it well in a previous post on a now locked thread:

It is useful to note that the mention of German war crimes in the Great War was not limited to the killing of civilians in France and Belgium under the pretext of responding to francs-tireurs, which whilst very problematic under the laws of the time was not quite on the verge of a war crime, but rather included mention of the destruction of significant swathes of France during the retreats of 1917 and 1918. Further to that can be added the Rape of Belgium, murder of civilians, pillage, unrestricted submarine warfare and the bombardments of Scarborough and Whitby; the latter two were very much contrary to established laws of war/IHL even at that stage.

This is why i do not allow the defense of Germany in a historical setting, if you want to discuses Germany in a What If ore post about it for Historical reason, i have no problem with it.

okay....