Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By danhanegan

Thread: World War One - Germany and her allies

  1. #1 World War One - Germany and her allies 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5
    Greetings!

    As I am currently studying World War One, I have stumbled upon a question which I really do not know if there is a correct answer to but I though I'd give it a shot and discuss about it here. I have read about the different alliances which existed before and during WW1 but as I read about it, I asked myself why Germany usually made alliances with weaker countries?

    My first thought which popped up was Germany's secret alliance with Turkey, but as I read more about Turkey's role in WW1 I realized that it must have been because of her geographical position. Since Turkey had a poorly equipped army and a pretty much non-existing navy this is the only logical explanation I can think of. The kaiser or his adviser's must have known that Turkey's geographical position would cause damage to the allies if she was on their side.

    However, why did Germany establish a friendship with Austria - Hungary instead of Russia? Was it because Germany thought a close friendship with Russia would eventually clash with Germany's ambitions? Germany was encircled but this could have been easily solved by creating stronger bonds to Russia, but I guess there would have been consequences by doing this, however, instead they allied themselves with Austria-Hungary which was not really in its prime.

    Or did Germany think that if she created tight bonds with a strong country then she would probably in the future have to deal with the country anyway because of different goals/ambitions?


    Last edited by Maximus; October 14th, 2013 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Additional information
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Bismark tried to develop a triple alliance with Russia and Austria. The rivalry between them over the Balkans made it difficult.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Pre WW1 German alliances were strategically a bit chaotic to say the least but based on a desire for protection and stability of the German State. They were essentially started under Bismark, we have to remember here that Germany as a nation was relatively young compared say to Britain or France. For along time Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states, it was only from the late 19th century, appox 1862 - 1871, that Otto Von Bismarck, the then Prussian Chancelor began to create a German empire after winning several minor wars with states around Prussia, it was to lay the foundation for a modern unified single state of Germany.

    It was this relative youth of Germany that made it politically inexperienced at a national level. The kind of long standing national alliances for Germany as a nation just didn't exist, but Bismarck wanted a series of alliances which would stabilize Europe until Germany had become an established Nation. He chose to make alliences with countries he felt able to acheive this objective, regardless of their actual miltary value.
    An alliance with France wasn’t possible because of lingering hatred and anger over the German control of Alsace-Lorraine, and knew that Britain was engaged in a foreign policy of isolation which kept the nation out of the continent. So he turned to Austria-Hungary and Russia for allies. These alliances lasted until 1878 when the Russians withdrew from their German alliance. After this Germany stood together with Austria-Hungary in a new alliance known as the Dual Alliance formed in1879 and was joined by Italy in 1881 to form the Triple Alliance.

    On paper these alliances may have looked sound, in reality the Austria-Hungary Empire, that had stood for centuries under the successful rule of the Habsburg's, was on the wane and Italy would turn away from Germany to form a new alliance with France. The other major problem was that to secure their alliance with Austria-Hungary they had to agree to mutual defence. This, given the fact that Britain, France & Russia went on in 1892 to form the Triple Entente Alliance, pretty much made the first world war enevitable after the events in Sarajevo and Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    However, why did Germany establish a friendship with Austria - Hungary instead of Russia?
    I think one of the reasons was that in order for such alliance to exist, Russia would have to ally with Germany and/or Austro-Hungary against France, U.K. and couple of more European and non-European empires. But Russia was hardly interested to go in war against Western Empires and instead preferred to ally with them against its most likely potential enemies - Germany and Austro-Hungary. Could Germany and Austro-Hungary avoid fight on both sides without alliance with Russia is a separate question. But I think that hardly, because conquering "lebensraum" in Russia was the most important aim of WWI. As well as in WWII fight on Western front was rather secondary and annoying necessity for the Axis. In fact it were France and U.K. who didn't want the Axis become too strong by conquering huge Eastern territories. They realized that after subduing entire Eastern Europe and Russia the Axis will become extremely strong and dangerous and they will become the next loosers.
    Last edited by Stanley514; October 14th, 2013 at 04:58 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Also it is remarkable that four largest wars of a modern history - WWII, WWI, Napoleonic wars and Northern Wars of Charles XXII ended in complete defeat of those side who started them and/or death of their leaders. Whether it is a rule or coincidence, I do not know.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I'm sensing a connection here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended
    Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus
    Germany usually made alliances with weaker countries
    This sounds like a proven strategy of assimilation. Can anyone confirm this?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Also it is remarkable that four largest wars of a modern history - WWII, WWI, Napoleonic wars and Northern Wars of Charles XXII ended in complete defeat of those side who started them and/or death of their leaders. Whether it is a rule or coincidence, I do not know.
    I find your definition of "largest" rather odd and suggesting a Western bias. At least a half a dozen war in Asian and Africa exceeded the last two in either area or deaths.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 15th, 2013 at 05:15 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Pre WW1 German alliances were strategically a bit chaotic to say the least but based on a desire for protection and stability of the German State. They were essentially started under Bismark, we have to remember here that Germany as a nation was relatively young compared say to Britain or France. For along time Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states, it was only from the late 19th century, appox 1862 - 1871, that Otto Von Bismarck, the then Prussian Chancelor began to create a German empire after winning several minor wars with states around Prussia, it was to lay the foundation for a modern unified single state of Germany.

    It was this relative youth of Germany that made it politically inexperienced at a national level. The kind of long standing national alliances for Germany as a nation just didn't exist, but Bismarck wanted a series of alliances which would stabilize Europe until Germany had become an established Nation. He chose to make alliences with countries he felt able to acheive this objective, regardless of their actual miltary value.
    An alliance with France wasn’t possible because of lingering hatred and anger over the German control of Alsace-Lorraine, and knew that Britain was engaged in a foreign policy of isolation which kept the nation out of the continent. So he turned to Austria-Hungary and Russia for allies. These alliances lasted until 1878 when the Russians withdrew from their German alliance. After this Germany stood together with Austria-Hungary in a new alliance known as the Dual Alliance formed in1879 and was joined by Italy in 1881 to form the Triple Alliance.

    On paper these alliances may have looked sound, in reality the Austria-Hungary Empire, that had stood for centuries under the successful rule of the Habsburg's, was on the wane and Italy would turn away from Germany to form a new alliance with France. The other major problem was that to secure their alliance with Austria-Hungary they had to agree to mutual defence. This, given the fact that Britain, France & Russia went on in 1892 to form the Triple Entente Alliance, pretty much made the first world war enevitable after the events in Sarajevo and Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.
    Impressive explanation, this clarified it.

    Considering that Austria-Hungary had a desire to expand its empire even more I found it a bit surprising that Bismark wanted an alliance with her, however, it does makes sense considering what you said about the other European powers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    However, why did Germany establish a friendship with Austria - Hungary instead of Russia?
    I think one of the reasons was that in order for such alliance to exist, Russia would have to ally with Germany and/or Austro-Hungary against France, U.K. and couple of more European and non-European empires. But Russia was hardly interested to go in war against Western Empires and instead preferred to ally with them against its most likely potential enemies - Germany and Austro-Hungary. Could Germany and Austro-Hungary avoid fight on both sides without alliance with Russia is a separate question. But I think that hardly, because conquering "lebensraum" in Russia was the most important aim of WWI. As well as in WWII fight on Western front was rather secondary and annoying necessity for the Axis. In fact it were France and U.K. who didn't want the Axis become too strong by conquering huge Eastern territories. They realized that after subduing entire Eastern Europe and Russia the Axis will become extremely strong and dangerous and they will become the next loosers.
    Interesting! I actually had no idea that conquering "lebensraum" was an important aim of WWI, as far as I knew that was one of Hitler's major political idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Also it is remarkable that four largest wars of a modern history - WWII, WWI, Napoleonic wars and Northern Wars of Charles XXII ended in complete defeat of those side who started them and/or death of their leaders. Whether it is a rule or coincidence, I do not know.
    Indeed it is and it's an interesting question, however, I have to disagree with you. Isn't rather the chain of events and decisions made by the leaders which eventually makes them fall instead of coincidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I'm sensing a connection here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended
    Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus
    Germany usually made alliances with weaker countries
    This sounds like a proven strategy of assimilation. Can anyone confirm this?
    Now this I found interesting as well, I never saw the connection! It does indeed sound like a proven strategy of assimilation, and it kind of goes along with German aims during the 20th century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I'm sensing a connection here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended
    Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus
    Germany usually made alliances with weaker countries
    This sounds like a proven strategy of assimilation. Can anyone confirm this?
    The idea of assimilation with regard to empire building is a proven concept that predates even the most famous achievements of the ancient Greeks, though it was perhaps most noticable during the time of the Roman Empire. It's really pretty much this blueprint layed out by the Romans that many of the subsequent great empires have followed. In this respect Bismark's efforts weren't much different whilst building his Empire, but the actual of idea of alliences with weaker countries seems to suggest that the period of empire building was over, that rather than seek to conquer these weaker nations that this newly formed German Empire was more concerned with establishing itself, signaling an end to expansionism.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Pre WW1 German alliances were strategically a bit chaotic to say the least but based on a desire for protection and stability of the German State. They were essentially started under Bismark, we have to remember here that Germany as a nation was relatively young compared say to Britain or France. For along time Germany was little more than a mere collection of small states, it was only from the late 19th century, appox 1862 - 1871, that Otto Von Bismarck, the then Prussian Chancelor began to create a German empire after winning several minor wars with states around Prussia, it was to lay the foundation for a modern unified single state of Germany.

    It was this relative youth of Germany that made it politically inexperienced at a national level. The kind of long standing national alliances for Germany as a nation just didn't exist, but Bismarck wanted a series of alliances which would stabilize Europe until Germany had become an established Nation. He chose to make alliences with countries he felt able to acheive this objective, regardless of their actual miltary value.
    An alliance with France wasn’t possible because of lingering hatred and anger over the German control of Alsace-Lorraine, and knew that Britain was engaged in a foreign policy of isolation which kept the nation out of the continent. So he turned to Austria-Hungary and Russia for allies. These alliances lasted until 1878 when the Russians withdrew from their German alliance. After this Germany stood together with Austria-Hungary in a new alliance known as the Dual Alliance formed in1879 and was joined by Italy in 1881 to form the Triple Alliance.

    On paper these alliances may have looked sound, in reality the Austria-Hungary Empire, that had stood for centuries under the successful rule of the Habsburg's, was on the wane and Italy would turn away from Germany to form a new alliance with France. The other major problem was that to secure their alliance with Austria-Hungary they had to agree to mutual defence. This, given the fact that Britain, France & Russia went on in 1892 to form the Triple Entente Alliance, pretty much made the first world war enevitable after the events in Sarajevo and Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.
    Impressive explanation, this clarified it.

    Considering that Austria-Hungary had a desire to expand its empire even more I found it a bit surprising that Bismark wanted an alliance with her, however, it does makes sense considering what you said about the other European powers.
    I have been under the impression that Austria-Hungary had no particular desire to expand. Its policy in the Bakans was based on keeping down agitation for Slavic autonomy or independence among its own subjects. A-H felt that Serbia was the main source of this agitation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    Interesting! I actually had no idea that conquering "lebensraum" was an important aim of WWI, as far as I knew that was one of Hitler's major political idea.
    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea of how Stanley got this bizarre idea. My knowledge of WWI is limited, but I have read extensively on WWII and on Hitler and can recall no references to this concept being extant in WWI. Perhaps Stanley can provide citations that will support his assertion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    Interesting! I actually had no idea that conquering "lebensraum" was an important aim of WWI, as far as I knew that was one of Hitler's major political idea.
    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea of how Stanley got this bizarre idea. My knowledge of WWI is limited, but I have read extensively on WWII and on Hitler and can recall no references to this concept being extant in WWI. Perhaps Stanley can provide citations that will support his assertion.
    Before WWI Germany had no expansionist ambitions in Europe. The Kaiser, mainly for reasons of vanity, had colonial ambitions (Africa and Pacific islands).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    I don't know much about WW1 but my guess on why Germany didn't want an alliance with Russia is because although the military was huge it wasn't exactly known for its ability (you might say look at Napoleon but it would be ignorant to ignore the loss in the Crimean War and Russo-Japanese War, the tsarist regime wasn't exactly known for its stability; it had probably been known for a while it would collapse eventually and Germany even let Lenin return from exile to Russia during the revolution to try and get the provisional government to surrender in 1917), i'm pretty sure Russia had strains with Austria as well (over the Crimean War which they remained neutral in) and relied heavily on foreign investment from the West - particularly France and the Britain to provide loans to the tsarist government for the building of the industrial economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea of how Stanley got this bizarre idea. My knowledge of WWI is limited, but I have read extensively on WWII and on Hitler and can recall no references to this concept being extant in WWI. Perhaps Stanley can provide citations that will support his assertion.
    The WWI started officially when Austro-Hungarian Empire proclaimed war on Serbia (insignificant country) and just few days after that Germany proclaimed war on Russia. It allows me to think about real motives that were behind the war. Germany likely realized that war on two front was difficult and would not start war on Russia if this war was not preplanned. Russia didn't proclaim war neither on Austro-Hungary. This country proclaimed war on Russia first as well as Germany. If you reject my explanation of real motives which were behind WWI then what is your own version?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea of how Stanley got this bizarre idea. My knowledge of WWI is limited, but I have read extensively on WWII and on Hitler and can recall no references to this concept being extant in WWI. Perhaps Stanley can provide citations that will support his assertion.
    The WWI started officially when Austro-Hungarian Empire proclaimed war on Serbia (insignificant country) and just few days after that Germany proclaimed war on Russia. It allows me to think about real motives that were behind the war. Germany likely realized that war on two front was difficult and would not start war on Russia if this war was not preplanned. Russia didn't proclaim war neither on Austro-Hungary. This country proclaimed war on Russia first as well as Germany. If you reject my explanation of real motives which were behind WWI then what is your own version?
    Austria declared war on Serbia and Russia mobilized troops in support of Serbia so Germany declared war on them...

    edit: colonial amibition is one of the causes accepted by some historians but it certainly wasn't called the same as the Nazi ideology above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    edit: colonial amibition is one of the causes accepted by some historians but it certainly wasn't called the same as the Nazi ideology above.
    And it had a quite different purpose, or purposes:
    1. To acquire colonies that could provide raw materials and markets for finished goods.
    2. To raise Germany to the same status as France and Britain who had extensive colonies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea of how Stanley got this bizarre idea. My knowledge of WWI is limited, but I have read extensively on WWII and on Hitler and can recall no references to this concept being extant in WWI. Perhaps Stanley can provide citations that will support his assertion.
    The WWI started officially when Austro-Hungarian Empire proclaimed war on Serbia (insignificant country) and just few days after that Germany proclaimed war on Russia. It allows me to think about real motives that were behind the war. Germany likely realized that war on two front was difficult and would not start war on Russia if this war was not preplanned. Russia didn't proclaim war neither on Austro-Hungary. This country proclaimed war on Russia first as well as Germany. If you reject my explanation of real motives which were behind WWI then what is your own version?
    I don't think it was preplaned... but they didn't eat grass... there where for longer time problems... afcourse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I believe cultural and ethnic factors were largely responsible for Germany allying with Austria rather than Russia. Austrians and Germans share a common language and much cultural heritage. The slavic peoples of Russia have a different heritage that Germans of the time tended to regard as foreign at best and uncivilized at worst. Russians, for their part, have a long historical paranoia regarding German invaders from the West dating back to at least Medieval times.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I believe cultural and ethnic factors were largely responsible for Germany allying with Austria rather than Russia. Austrians and Germans share a common language and much cultural heritage. The slavic peoples of Russia have a different heritage that Germans of the time tended to regard as foreign at best and uncivilized at worst. Russians, for their part, have a long historical paranoia regarding German invaders from the West dating back to at least Medieval times.
    tell me more about those medivial times germans got into the Russia...??? it was only napoleon and hitler who went there as far as I know...???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    tell me more about those medivial times germans got into the Russia...??? it was only napoleon and hitler who went there as far as I know...???
    There were some military conflicts between medieval Russians and Germans though not between their states officially, but between some rather independent groups as there were no German and Russian empires back then. One of the notable battle was between Livonian branch of Teutonic knights and Novgorod principality. Battle of the Ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It happened as result of Teutonic knights expansion in Eastern Europe. There were also couple of military conflicts between Russians and Teutonic knights in 16-th century. There were extensive wars with Swedes, especially in 18-th century. But I think it was not Russian "paranoia" about Germans that was an issue before WWI, but rather pure geopolitical calculation. France and U.K. were not regarded as a countries which are likely invade Russia, made it their colony, and settle it with millions of their colonists. While German - A.-H. alliance was much more likely candidate on this role. I guess it did determine position of Russia to some extent.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    In German history lessons...we usually have been taught the perspective that the alliance with Austria was what was left of the Bismarck alliance-system and that the emporer totally sucked at making new or keeping old allies.
    It wasn't really a choice.

    And we shouldn't forget that Bismarck mainly thought of a scenario in which he fought france...while the generals that influenced the emperor always had bigger plans.

    One of the main reasons was that Germany felt much stronger than a few year after it was founded, and totally overestimated itself and therefor didn't realized the need for strong allies.
    According to Walter Rathenau (who was responsible for supplying German troops with recourses) Germany wasn't ready for war. The OHL (the Generals) and the emperor simply ignored that. They believed they can handle any european superpower.

    Antother reason I can think of is that Austria had been a part of the German states for very long (it was Bismarck who kicked them out). So...I don't know for sure if it was a factor that both are neighbors, have the same language and spend most of their history together. Indeed...that didn't kept them from fighting...but in the end I think Austria was considered as a more trustworthy ally than russia.
    Especially because it didn't had any notable allies itself. And as you said...it was in big troubles at that time (I wouldn't call it weak...it was very big back than, but its finances, military and administration wasn't in a very good condition)...so (unlike russia or other countries) it depended on Germany as an ally. (I guess my austrian neighbors have another perspective but...youknow)
    In a German-Austrian alliance Germany was clearly the dominating one. And thats what Germany wanted at that time.

    So if that scene would play on a schoolyard...we have those two kids noone else wanted to play with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Interesting posts above. I have little to add except that WW2 greatly distorted our prism of WW1. With the centenary of WW1 coming up and no more veterans, a more historic view of the war is possible. My mother grew up in London. In the 1930's she said that WW1 was a big black cloud that hung over the country. A colossal slaughter that nobody revelled in despite the Allied victory. However, once we were at war again with Germany, WW1 was elevated to mythical proportions as a noble cause. It was used as fuel to pump up nationalism. The Germans in WW1 went from being the enemy to being evil. Anyways, WW1 was 'weird'...an all around mistake from Hell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Wars seem a sad and all to common reality in our evolution towards a more enlighted state, they said the first world war was the war to end all wars but that obviously didn't prove to be the case. Perhaps what is really weird is the fact that mankinds greatest ever weapons of warefare, those being nuclear weapons, have prevented world war three and hopefully continue to do so with the continued threat of mutually assured destruction. Certainly had it not been for the fear and threat of these weapons then the cold war might have well become that next world war, but that it didn't does give rise to some thought of what if....., thus what if nuclear weapons had existed pre-world war one, could this have totally stopped the ensuing madness from happening in the first place? Millions of lives lost, that could have been avoided if the politians had done their jobs properly and found diplomatic solutions, again they would have surely come up with such solutions if faced with an alternative of nuclear annilation, rather than just a sacrifce of life by a nations young men.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Ascended...re nuclear weapons. True and just to add to your point. In a perverted way the actual 'use' of 2 nuclear bombs in WW2 may have prevented a nuclear war. Even after the bombs were used, the Soviets were skeptical of their effect until actual photos came out. These were not just big bombs but qualitatively more destructive by magnitudes. The people of the world witnessed the destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    This is an incredible couple minutes of WW1film footage.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=decZP5PfrVM
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    , the Soviets were skeptical of their effect until actual photos came out.
    Hey cheers I didn't know that, seems logical though. It must have come has one heck of a shock to many countries, even if they had an idea that such weapons were possible the reality of the sheer destructive force must have been pretty much unimaginable.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    German in that time is really cruel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    Greetings!

    As I am currently studying World War One, I have stumbled upon a question which I really do not know if there is a correct answer to but I though I'd give it a shot and discuss about it here. I have read about the different alliances which existed before and during WW1 but as I read about it, I asked myself why Germany usually made alliances with weaker countries?

    My first thought which popped up was Germany's secret alliance with Turkey, but as I read more about Turkey's role in WW1 I realized that it must have been because of her geographical position. Since Turkey had a poorly equipped army and a pretty much non-existing navy this is the only logical explanation I can think of. The kaiser or his adviser's must have known that Turkey's geographical position would cause damage to the allies if she was on their side.

    However, why did Germany establish a friendship with Austria - Hungary instead of Russia? Was it because Germany thought a close friendship with Russia would eventually clash with Germany's ambitions? Germany was encircled but this could have been easily solved by creating stronger bonds to Russia, but I guess there would have been consequences by doing this, however, instead they allied themselves with Austria-Hungary which was not really in its prime.

    Or did Germany think that if she created tight bonds with a strong country then she would probably in the future have to deal with the country anyway because of different goals/ambitions?
    You should consider the reasons for the war. Its not, pick and choose who is the best ally. Its more correctly a result of each country's history and relations between itself and other countries/areas and the people.

    The dislike between germans and russians (as seen in ww2) existed before ww1. as others have said on this thread, russia most likely did not want to war against western empires. this is for many reasons, but these western empires were helping the czar as well (influenced russia's communist revolution).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    In either world war, I always want to be Italy. they win all the time.
    neutral to ally
    enemy to ally.

    can't beat smart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Wars seem a sad and all to common reality in our evolution towards a more enlighted state, they said the first world war was the war to end all wars but that obviously didn't prove to be the case. Perhaps what is really weird is the fact that mankinds greatest ever weapons of warefare, those being nuclear weapons, have prevented world war three and hopefully continue to do so with the continued threat of mutually assured destruction. Certainly had it not been for the fear and threat of these weapons then the cold war might have well become that next world war, but that it didn't does give rise to some thought of what if....., thus what if nuclear weapons had existed pre-world war one, could this have totally stopped the ensuing madness from happening in the first place? Millions of lives lost, that could have been avoided if the politians had done their jobs properly and found diplomatic solutions, again they would have surely come up with such solutions if faced with an alternative of nuclear annilation, rather than just a sacrifce of life by a nations young men.
    Sadly Ascended, just to add a few points to your important observation. I have never observed humans to build anything, good or bad and not use it in a given circumstance. The very fact that these weapons are still there, posses a threat to the world. No doubt mutual annihilation has kept a lid on it coupled with the fact that poverty at least in the nations that have these weapons are a bit more balanced. There is a problem coming down the road that has not been addressed that has to do with land and the world economies, that in many respects started with world war 1 and ww 11. This problem has very much to do with the different types of systems that runs the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Wars seem a sad and all to common reality in our evolution towards a more enlighted state, they said the first world war was the war to end all wars but that obviously didn't prove to be the case. Perhaps what is really weird is the fact that mankinds greatest ever weapons of warefare, those being nuclear weapons, have prevented world war three and hopefully continue to do so with the continued threat of mutually assured destruction. Certainly had it not been for the fear and threat of these weapons then the cold war might have well become that next world war, but that it didn't does give rise to some thought of what if....., thus what if nuclear weapons had existed pre-world war one, could this have totally stopped the ensuing madness from happening in the first place? Millions of lives lost, that could have been avoided if the politians had done their jobs properly and found diplomatic solutions, again they would have surely come up with such solutions if faced with an alternative of nuclear annilation, rather than just a sacrifce of life by a nations young men.
    Sadly Ascended, just to add a few points to your important observation. I have never observed humans to build anything, good or bad and not use it in a given circumstance. The very fact that these weapons are still there, posses a threat to the world. No doubt mutual annihilation has kept a lid on it coupled with the fact that poverty at least in the nations that have these weapons are a bit more balanced. There is a problem coming down the road that has not been addressed that has to do with land and the world economies, that in many respects started with world war 1 and ww 11. This problem has very much to do with the different types of systems that runs the world.
    Hey you never know the future is always being written, perhaps there is a rewrite out there where we will finally learn to do away with all these wars and finally start to concentrate on building things and advancement, we just need to get away from this competitiveness of nations and start to see what they can achieve working together, collective success and benefits.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Wars seem a sad and all to common reality in our evolution towards a more enlighted state, they said the first world war was the war to end all wars but that obviously didn't prove to be the case. Perhaps what is really weird is the fact that mankinds greatest ever weapons of warefare, those being nuclear weapons, have prevented world war three and hopefully continue to do so with the continued threat of mutually assured destruction. Certainly had it not been for the fear and threat of these weapons then the cold war might have well become that next world war, but that it didn't does give rise to some thought of what if....., thus what if nuclear weapons had existed pre-world war one, could this have totally stopped the ensuing madness from happening in the first place? Millions of lives lost, that could have been avoided if the politians had done their jobs properly and found diplomatic solutions, again they would have surely come up with such solutions if faced with an alternative of nuclear annilation, rather than just a sacrifce of life by a nations young men.
    Sadly Ascended, just to add a few points to your important observation. I have never observed humans to build anything, good or bad and not use it in a given circumstance. The very fact that these weapons are still there, posses a threat to the world. No doubt mutual annihilation has kept a lid on it coupled with the fact that poverty at least in the nations that have these weapons are a bit more balanced. There is a problem coming down the road that has not been addressed that has to do with land and the world economies, that in many respects started with world war 1 and ww 11. This problem has very much to do with the different types of systems that runs the world.
    Hey you never know the future is always being written, perhaps there is a rewrite out there where we will finally learn to do away with all these wars and finally start to concentrate on building things and advancement, we just need to get away from this competitiveness of nations and start to see what they can achieve working together, collective success and benefits.
    Absolutely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. World War 3
    By mmatt9876 in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 10th, 2012, 01:38 PM
  2. Replies: 96
    Last Post: January 12th, 2012, 11:34 AM
  3. Returning to Germany.
    By mmatt9876 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 1st, 2011, 11:31 AM
  4. Is anyone here from Germany or Austria?
    By icewendigo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 30th, 2007, 02:35 AM
  5. Greetings from Germany!
    By K.I.T.T. in forum Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •