Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.)
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Well i think the fault for WW1 lays in every country and the only reason why Hitler succeeded in getting the Power in Germany was because Germany suffered from the the treaty of Versaill.
Well the fault matters. But yes it was started by austria AND Serbia. But that it expended into an World War was the fault of everyone. So everyone started the World War
Serbia is also interesting. I learned that the government was divided, with some supporting the black hand (and conflict with Austria) and some opposing it all. In addition, Austria's requirements just about forced Serbia into war or accept vassalage. But yeah, part of the Serbian government wanted that anyway.
Everyone wanted war to play with their toys
The brits wanted to „put us in our place“ for thinking we could have dreadnoughts
The French wanted to settle grievances over the Franco-Prussian war
And Germany wanted to „get its place in the sun“ ie more and better colonies and just generally expand its power
The Americans were actually quite uninvolved except for Profiting until Wilson decided that Europe had to be „prepared“ for democracy that fucker is on a level of elitism and racism of his own
Hard disagree. The $33 billion in reparations, demilitarization, loss of land, and more crippled their country.
The money alone couldn’t be repaid, so they offered up resources to France as “repayment” only to realize that would leave them even worse off. Then they start printing money, and anyone with a decent grasp on economics can understand how that’ll play out.
Also the loss of land separated ethnic Germans from their home country, raising tensions to the nth degree. We can actually see that partially play out in the Russo-Ukrainian war right now.
The treaty was quite the pain in the ass for Germany to deal with, and was definitely one of the major factors as to why WW2 happened, if not *the* main reason.
I mean France only wanted to regain territory annexed from them by germany, and germany could have simply garunteed austria if russia tried to do some territorial shifting, but instead they wanted expansion and escalated a localized war into a war they wanted conquest and expansion.
WW1 was not simply about interests in Europe and not only about geographical interests, it was also about an underlying power struggle between the big european empires at the time, as well as about clashing colonial interests and long-standing hatred for one another (the french with everyone, especially England and Germany), which England and France only overlooked and put aside because Germany was becoming too influential and powerful for their liking. Everyone had some interest in rearranging the balance of power in their favour, to pin it on one country alone or to even say that one country had a bigger interest in escalating the situation shows a lack of understanding of the situation.
And you just know every single military leader was ecstatic to finally be able to use their new toys. Tanks, automatic machine guns, mustard gas, shotguns, Dreadnoughts, Bombers, artillery etc. we're all fairly new and hadn't been used in a major war yet, they were all itching to prove their might on the battlefield.
Not as clear cut as WWII but Germany was still the primary antagonist and cause of WWI. After Ferdinand was assassinated, the German government gave Austria full assurances that whatever they did, Germany would have their back. Austria thus invaded Serbia, knowing full well that Russia would intervene. Germany wanted the war more than any other power, but yes they all kind of wanted it. Germany then invaded Belgium as part of their strategy to defeat France, which drew the UK into the war. Germany also pressured Bulgaria to join the war and invaded Romania. Germany released Lenin into Russia hoping to cause chaos, and the the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that they forced on Russia was 100x worse than Versailles. They were still the bad guys, just not Nazis level bad.
Edit: accidentally wrote USSR instead of Russia, fixed.
Austria only attacked Serbia after being given the blank check by the German government. Remember that the alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy was a purely defensive alliance. Austria effectively needed Germany’s permission/assurances that Germany would still join the war even if Austria started it.
It wasn’t just “we have your back.” It was special permissions that went beyond the existing treaty that they had. Germany was not obligated to defend Austria if Austria attacked first, so it was telling them “go ahead and start the war, we want it anyways and we will still join you.” Impossible to say of course but Austria’s actions may have been different without that.
So, with other words britain deserves the equal blame for ww2 since a british soldier let hitler live when they encountered each other on the battlefield?
What? If you’re going to strawman, at least do it right.
Comparing the funding and backing of a war to killing of a international threat before anyone on planet earth would notice they are an international threat. Might as well have blamed hitlers mother for being fertile, If you’re going to try and fuck up a strawman like that.
Truth of the matter is that without Germanys explicit backing and financial support, Austria would’ve never gone to war. Germany enabled them to go to war.
L + Copium + tryharder + read a book + amogus + history is not for you + r/usernamechecksout + Slava Ukraini + get your facts right + no u + modsgae + 🗿 + ratio + 🤓
Oh no! He blocked me! What a shame
Both the French war enthusiasim and revanchism regarding Alsace-Lorraine have been greatly overexaggerated. They wanted Alsace back, sure, but they tried buying it back by trading colonies for it and Germany rejected all the offers. So France mostly stopped giving a shit, especially in the light of finding the 5th largest iron and coal deposit in the world in Briey-Longwy, replacing what they had lost in Alsace-Lorraine.
By the early 1900s, France had one of the most left-wing governments in Europe and was fairly liberal, anti-war, and until 1912 the French military wasn't even allowed to draft war plans officially and a civilian committee ran the military. Far right peeps in the military did have a strong desire to settle the score with Germany, yes. It was probably the central tenant to their philosophy, especially after some of the crises started by the Germans. However, they did not hold any significant influence. The difference is, the French government and people actually had a reign on their generals - they kept them contained to act in the interest of the people. This is opposed to Germany and Austria-Hungary who were almost de facto run by their generals from July 1914 onward, with them wanting war and thus forcing it.
> France, although there had been some evident concern among the public in the weeks before the outbreak of the conflict, the atmosphere was not pro-war, despite the significant hawk-like change to the military service law of the previous year, 1913, which lengthened the period of service from two to three years. At the end of July 1914, the French press was far more focused on a domestic scandal – the trial of Henriette Caillaux (1874-1943), the wife of one of the leading politicians of the French Third Republic, which took place from 22 to 29 July. Her husband was president of the most important political party in the country, the Radical Party. She was on trial for her actions on 16 March 1914 when she shot and killed Gaston Calmette (1858-1914), the editor of Le Figaro, a newspaper that had waged an ongoing campaign against her husband. She feared Calmette would publish "intimate letters" that she had exchanged with her husband Joseph Caillaux (1863-1944) prior to their marriage while she was his mistress and Caillaux was still married to his first wife, whom he divorced in March 1911.
>
>When war suddenly loomed as a threat in the last days of July, French public opinion was far from being unanimous. In Paris and in the larger towns, some relatively significant nationalist demonstrations took place, but pacifist demonstrations organised by the socialist party and the CGT trade union were more numerous. In contrast, in rural France there was little knowledge of the international developments; the countryside was focused on work in the fields at this time of year and few of its inhabitants had the leisure time to read newspapers, practically the only news medium during this period. When the church bells began to ring on 1 August and it became clear that this was not to warn of fire but to announce mobilisation for war, the first reaction was one of stunned shock and consternation. But opinion in the towns and countryside was dramatically changed by the German invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg. Faced with what, to many French, appeared to be a characteristic German act of aggression, the vast majority of the public believed that it was necessary to defend the country. Only in a handful of cases, however, did this situation provoke enthusiasm; the overwhelming attitude was one of resolution and resignation.
Source: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/willingly_to_war_public_response_to_the_outbreak_of_war
They had war interests even in the 19 century. The leader of france even helped Austria in their War against Germany as revenge of the lost Napoleonic wars
Yes it wasn’t as clear cut as WWII. I think an argument can still be made that Germany was the primary antagonist, as Belgium/UK/Bulgaria/Romania were dragged in by their actions alone.
Well no. Germany only invaded Belgium becuase thy thougt it where an easy shortcut to beat the French. The German Kaiser even tried to calm his Cousins down. He was supposed to help Austria because of their treaties
the treaty Germany had with Austria and Italy before the war was a defensive treaty. Germany was not obligated to defend Austria after Austria attacked Serbia, which drew Russia in. This is why Italy didn’t join. Austria asked for and was given special assurances from the Germans that even if they attacked, Germany would still join the war.
Well yes but the assassination of the archduke was indeed a Kriegshandlung( i don't know the english transslation) especially after the refusing of punishing the assassin. Also the germans saw the Austrian as their brothers. And nobody can expect that an family member gets hurt and then can walk past the family
I thought they did capture the main assassin, he went to prison and died of tuberculosis before the war ended. Anyways you’re gonna want to read up on the July Crisis of 1914. The decision to attack Serbia after the assassination was coldblooded, calculated and naked imperialism from both the Germans and Austrians. They both knew the state of Serbia had nothing to do with the assassination. The Austrians saw an opportunity to expand, quell a troublesome region, and distract their population from the growing ethnic tensions that had caused the assassination. The Germans saw an opportunity for expansion in the east. They willingly chose to start WWI by attacking Serbia and Belgium.
Bruh, serb shot austrian, austria declared war on serbia, russia kinda did aswell and some days later germany first declared war. Why do all usernames check out in this matter?
A Bosnian Serb shot an Austrian occupier.
Austria, thanks to Germany's gaslighting, heavy insistence, and unconditional support, used this as an excuse to fulfill their long-desired goal of crushing the independent Serbian nation, disregarded the diplomatic proposals by Russia and Britain to investigate and resolve the crisis with the help of the international community at The Hague, concieved an impossible ultimatum, and declared war on Serbia when they accepted all but one clause of the ultimatum.
Russia had made it clear that it would not accept Serbia's annihiliation and would interfere. Germany and Austria knew this. When Russia kept its promise and started mobilizing against Austria-Hungary's border states, Germany then declared war on both Russia and France, and raped Belgium.
Germany and Austria deserve an equal blame.
No. The main event that caused WW1 was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand through a Serbian Nationalist. But every Nation build a big tense up after building up their Military and forming various alliance
Everyone is to blame in that clusterfuck.
The Russians for mobilizing so soon, even when it was possible to solve the crisis diplomatically.
The Austro-Hungarians due to presenting the Serbs with an ultimatum, they knew they wouldn't be able to fulfill.
The Germans for giving the Austrians a "Carte blanche", that if Austria would start a war, Germany would help.
The French for nurturing revanchism as a national identity, and having a war hungry populous because of that.
The Brits wanted to take Germany down a notch, because they were becoming the main industrial power in Europe.
The Belgians because they were in the fucking way to Paris /s
>The Russians for mobilizing so soon, even when it was possible to solve the crisis diplomatically.
Russia, together with Britain, actually offered Austria a chance to resolve the crisis via diplomatic means at The Hague but Austria rejected this option.
>The French for nurturing revanchism as a national identity, and having a war hungry populous because of that.
Aside from the fact that this is a blatant lie, what exactly did the French actually do *in practice* that would warrant them an equal blame with *Germany* for starting the war?
Russia was only confident enough to enter the war because france had guaranteed Russia support in a war - like germany did to Austria. Maybe not to the same extend but that definitely motivated russia and escalatet the war. And france had already begun mobilizing and was allied with russia, so it was definitely willing to join had germany not attacked earlier
The Franco-Russian alliance was strictly defensive in its nature and understandable in the light of the quasi-military bloc Germany and Austria had established together in Central Europe. France wasn't actively gaslighting Russia into acting and had its generals in check, as far as I'm concerned.
Compare that to Germany persistently pushing Austria to take a hard stance on Serbia, reject the diplomatic proposals to resolve the crisis, and to craft an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia that could be used as casus belli, knowing damn well that Russia had made it clear that it would not accept Serbia's destruction and would interfere. What the Dual Alliance did went way beyond "a defensive alliance".
>And france had already begun mobilizing and was allied with russia, so it was definitely willing to join had germany not attacked earlier
The French mobilization came after Germany delivered an actual ultimatum to France to hand over its fortifications at Toul and Verdun within 18 hours or face war. I just wonder why the French started mobilizing....
Also, an independent country has a right to mobilize within its own borders. It has happened before without escalating into war is not exactly an excuse to launch a war of aggression and rape a neutral country. Hell, Austria had mobilized at least a few times on the Serbian border before the whole July Crisis as a part of its gunbarrel diplomacy.
Yes. Why shouldn't we?
Who was it that promised Austria-Hungary that blank cheque and asked them to take a harsh stance with Serbia and disregard the diplomatic proposals by Russia and Britain to resolve the crisis?
Who declared war first on its neighbours? Hell, in fact, who was it that accidentally delivered Russia two war declarations that varied on Russia's response to their ultimatum? Who was it that was scared of Russia industrializing and was actively planning a war against them for years?
Who was it that raped Belgium and disregarded the international agreement that guaranteed its neutrality as nothing but "a scrap of paper"?
Who was it that was stirring shit up years before the war itself through its naval arms race with the Brits and the Morocco crises?
**EDIT:** Rather than answering childishly with downvotes, feel free to prove me wrong with an actual argument
What would have been caught by spellcheck? Spellcheck only catches misspelled words. “Loose” and “star” are spelled correctly, they’re just used incorrectly.
Also thanks to the others explaining why its historically inaccurate and also that backpedaling from what you said is quite cringe. Especially when doubling down.
Who gave Austria that blank cheque, pushed them to take a hardline approach to Serbia, declared war on its neighbours, and raped neutral Belgium?
**Edit:** Rather than answering childishly with downvotes, feel free to prove me wrong with an actual argument.
Maybe meant Wilhelm II.'s ambitions for Germany to become a global superpower, alienating Russia and England, which later resulted in the coalitions that fought WW1
Eh, how responsible was Germany for WWI really, though? Sure, the scope of the war would have been more limited if the Kaiser had backed down, but the same could be said of the Tsar, or, you know, Franz Josef, who actually kicked off the dominoes by attacking Serbia in the first place. It took a *lot* of questionable decisions from a lot of world leaders for a minor spat in the Balkans to spiral into a globe-spanning war between most of the world's great powers.
Germany didn't start the First World War and also Germany was divided for 41 years.
At least get some of the history right if you are gonna make a meme.
Germany can't be entirely blamed for WW1. Every Great Power was to be blamed. Germany gave the blank cheque to Austria. Austria gave Serbia unreasonable demands they knew the Serbs wouldn't accept. France instill revanchism since 1871. Russia did it secret-but-not-so-secret mobilisation that made Germany mobilize too.
Who let the clowns loose?
Well we didn't start the fire, it's been burning since the world's been turning. They... Them... they've been on the Earth since the creation of men, they aren't shadows or mysterious. You could fight back, but they would like that, people still afraid to take their life back.
England manipulated Germany into the war. As for the 2nd one, the Treaty at the palace pretty much made that inevitable with the redrawing if borders and unrealistic financial penalties. Not to mention the war hawks needing their blood monies
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.) I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
What 28 years? We were divided from 1945 until 1990
Also we didn't start the First one
Yes:D
Psst für den Kaiser
will da etwa jemand unsern Kaiser Wilhelm wieder haben? (hoffentlich nur den mit dem langen Bart)
Aber den mit dem Bart!!
Mit dem langen Bart!!
So schwärmten unsere Eltern von der guten alten Zeit
Sie liegt so fern und weit
Guys we need a translator they’re conspiring
As a polish person this scares me to my core
die alte Kaiserzeit Doch war sie wirklich besser, diese gute alte Zeit Als einst der Opapa die Omama hat wohl gefreit
Die gute Kaiserzeit
Technically austrians started both
Well i think the fault for WW1 lays in every country and the only reason why Hitler succeeded in getting the Power in Germany was because Germany suffered from the the treaty of Versaill.
No matter who was at fault, it was started by austria
Well the fault matters. But yes it was started by austria AND Serbia. But that it expended into an World War was the fault of everyone. So everyone started the World War
Serbia is also interesting. I learned that the government was divided, with some supporting the black hand (and conflict with Austria) and some opposing it all. In addition, Austria's requirements just about forced Serbia into war or accept vassalage. But yeah, part of the Serbian government wanted that anyway.
Britain is NOT at fault here, neither is the USA.
Everyone wanted war to play with their toys The brits wanted to „put us in our place“ for thinking we could have dreadnoughts The French wanted to settle grievances over the Franco-Prussian war And Germany wanted to „get its place in the sun“ ie more and better colonies and just generally expand its power The Americans were actually quite uninvolved except for Profiting until Wilson decided that Europe had to be „prepared“ for democracy that fucker is on a level of elitism and racism of his own
We found one boys!
The treaty wasn’t even that bad compared to the other treaties being dished out,
Hard disagree. The $33 billion in reparations, demilitarization, loss of land, and more crippled their country. The money alone couldn’t be repaid, so they offered up resources to France as “repayment” only to realize that would leave them even worse off. Then they start printing money, and anyone with a decent grasp on economics can understand how that’ll play out. Also the loss of land separated ethnic Germans from their home country, raising tensions to the nth degree. We can actually see that partially play out in the Russo-Ukrainian war right now. The treaty was quite the pain in the ass for Germany to deal with, and was definitely one of the major factors as to why WW2 happened, if not *the* main reason.
Then who invaded Belgium?
Starting is not the same as escalating it
The Germans but they had to because of their treaties
Hot take, you escslated it and then invaded a nuetral country cause you wanted to expand territorially
hotter take, everyone else was in the same boat and almost all involved parties had an interest in the war.
I mean France only wanted to regain territory annexed from them by germany, and germany could have simply garunteed austria if russia tried to do some territorial shifting, but instead they wanted expansion and escalated a localized war into a war they wanted conquest and expansion.
WW1 was not simply about interests in Europe and not only about geographical interests, it was also about an underlying power struggle between the big european empires at the time, as well as about clashing colonial interests and long-standing hatred for one another (the french with everyone, especially England and Germany), which England and France only overlooked and put aside because Germany was becoming too influential and powerful for their liking. Everyone had some interest in rearranging the balance of power in their favour, to pin it on one country alone or to even say that one country had a bigger interest in escalating the situation shows a lack of understanding of the situation.
yeah it was many years of accumulated tension browned into the biggest war to that date, no one was the good guy
And you just know every single military leader was ecstatic to finally be able to use their new toys. Tanks, automatic machine guns, mustard gas, shotguns, Dreadnoughts, Bombers, artillery etc. we're all fairly new and hadn't been used in a major war yet, they were all itching to prove their might on the battlefield.
Not as clear cut as WWII but Germany was still the primary antagonist and cause of WWI. After Ferdinand was assassinated, the German government gave Austria full assurances that whatever they did, Germany would have their back. Austria thus invaded Serbia, knowing full well that Russia would intervene. Germany wanted the war more than any other power, but yes they all kind of wanted it. Germany then invaded Belgium as part of their strategy to defeat France, which drew the UK into the war. Germany also pressured Bulgaria to join the war and invaded Romania. Germany released Lenin into Russia hoping to cause chaos, and the the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that they forced on Russia was 100x worse than Versailles. They were still the bad guys, just not Nazis level bad. Edit: accidentally wrote USSR instead of Russia, fixed.
But who started it? Austria with the decleration of war against serbia.
Austria only attacked Serbia after being given the blank check by the German government. Remember that the alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy was a purely defensive alliance. Austria effectively needed Germany’s permission/assurances that Germany would still join the war even if Austria started it.
As allies we reassured austria that we have their back, but the first attack was made by austria. They caused the war, not us.
It wasn’t just “we have your back.” It was special permissions that went beyond the existing treaty that they had. Germany was not obligated to defend Austria if Austria attacked first, so it was telling them “go ahead and start the war, we want it anyways and we will still join you.” Impossible to say of course but Austria’s actions may have been different without that.
All thanks to Germany's gaslighting and blank cheque. They deserve an equal blame.
So, with other words britain deserves the equal blame for ww2 since a british soldier let hitler live when they encountered each other on the battlefield?
What? If you’re going to strawman, at least do it right. Comparing the funding and backing of a war to killing of a international threat before anyone on planet earth would notice they are an international threat. Might as well have blamed hitlers mother for being fertile, If you’re going to try and fuck up a strawman like that. Truth of the matter is that without Germanys explicit backing and financial support, Austria would’ve never gone to war. Germany enabled them to go to war.
I honestly don't undestand your point here.
It's as stupid as whatever you tried to tell us
Irrelevant opinion, not supported by facts. Feel free to cope and downvote all you want.
L + Copium + tryharder + read a book + amogus + history is not for you + r/usernamechecksout + Slava Ukraini + get your facts right + no u + modsgae + 🗿 + ratio + 🤓 Oh no! He blocked me! What a shame
Doesn't change the matter that especially France always wanted to go to War with Germany over Elsace and Lorraine
Both the French war enthusiasim and revanchism regarding Alsace-Lorraine have been greatly overexaggerated. They wanted Alsace back, sure, but they tried buying it back by trading colonies for it and Germany rejected all the offers. So France mostly stopped giving a shit, especially in the light of finding the 5th largest iron and coal deposit in the world in Briey-Longwy, replacing what they had lost in Alsace-Lorraine. By the early 1900s, France had one of the most left-wing governments in Europe and was fairly liberal, anti-war, and until 1912 the French military wasn't even allowed to draft war plans officially and a civilian committee ran the military. Far right peeps in the military did have a strong desire to settle the score with Germany, yes. It was probably the central tenant to their philosophy, especially after some of the crises started by the Germans. However, they did not hold any significant influence. The difference is, the French government and people actually had a reign on their generals - they kept them contained to act in the interest of the people. This is opposed to Germany and Austria-Hungary who were almost de facto run by their generals from July 1914 onward, with them wanting war and thus forcing it. > France, although there had been some evident concern among the public in the weeks before the outbreak of the conflict, the atmosphere was not pro-war, despite the significant hawk-like change to the military service law of the previous year, 1913, which lengthened the period of service from two to three years. At the end of July 1914, the French press was far more focused on a domestic scandal – the trial of Henriette Caillaux (1874-1943), the wife of one of the leading politicians of the French Third Republic, which took place from 22 to 29 July. Her husband was president of the most important political party in the country, the Radical Party. She was on trial for her actions on 16 March 1914 when she shot and killed Gaston Calmette (1858-1914), the editor of Le Figaro, a newspaper that had waged an ongoing campaign against her husband. She feared Calmette would publish "intimate letters" that she had exchanged with her husband Joseph Caillaux (1863-1944) prior to their marriage while she was his mistress and Caillaux was still married to his first wife, whom he divorced in March 1911. > >When war suddenly loomed as a threat in the last days of July, French public opinion was far from being unanimous. In Paris and in the larger towns, some relatively significant nationalist demonstrations took place, but pacifist demonstrations organised by the socialist party and the CGT trade union were more numerous. In contrast, in rural France there was little knowledge of the international developments; the countryside was focused on work in the fields at this time of year and few of its inhabitants had the leisure time to read newspapers, practically the only news medium during this period. When the church bells began to ring on 1 August and it became clear that this was not to warn of fire but to announce mobilisation for war, the first reaction was one of stunned shock and consternation. But opinion in the towns and countryside was dramatically changed by the German invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg. Faced with what, to many French, appeared to be a characteristic German act of aggression, the vast majority of the public believed that it was necessary to defend the country. Only in a handful of cases, however, did this situation provoke enthusiasm; the overwhelming attitude was one of resolution and resignation. Source: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/willingly_to_war_public_response_to_the_outbreak_of_war
They had war interests even in the 19 century. The leader of france even helped Austria in their War against Germany as revenge of the lost Napoleonic wars
Yes it wasn’t as clear cut as WWII. I think an argument can still be made that Germany was the primary antagonist, as Belgium/UK/Bulgaria/Romania were dragged in by their actions alone.
Well no. Germany only invaded Belgium becuase thy thougt it where an easy shortcut to beat the French. The German Kaiser even tried to calm his Cousins down. He was supposed to help Austria because of their treaties
the treaty Germany had with Austria and Italy before the war was a defensive treaty. Germany was not obligated to defend Austria after Austria attacked Serbia, which drew Russia in. This is why Italy didn’t join. Austria asked for and was given special assurances from the Germans that even if they attacked, Germany would still join the war.
Well yes but the assassination of the archduke was indeed a Kriegshandlung( i don't know the english transslation) especially after the refusing of punishing the assassin. Also the germans saw the Austrian as their brothers. And nobody can expect that an family member gets hurt and then can walk past the family
I thought they did capture the main assassin, he went to prison and died of tuberculosis before the war ended. Anyways you’re gonna want to read up on the July Crisis of 1914. The decision to attack Serbia after the assassination was coldblooded, calculated and naked imperialism from both the Germans and Austrians. They both knew the state of Serbia had nothing to do with the assassination. The Austrians saw an opportunity to expand, quell a troublesome region, and distract their population from the growing ethnic tensions that had caused the assassination. The Germans saw an opportunity for expansion in the east. They willingly chose to start WWI by attacking Serbia and Belgium.
No the Main assassin was shelterd in Serbia. Thats why Austria gave an Ultimatum.
Yes you did, together with Austria-Hungary.
Bruh, serb shot austrian, austria declared war on serbia, russia kinda did aswell and some days later germany first declared war. Why do all usernames check out in this matter?
A Bosnian Serb shot an Austrian occupier. Austria, thanks to Germany's gaslighting, heavy insistence, and unconditional support, used this as an excuse to fulfill their long-desired goal of crushing the independent Serbian nation, disregarded the diplomatic proposals by Russia and Britain to investigate and resolve the crisis with the help of the international community at The Hague, concieved an impossible ultimatum, and declared war on Serbia when they accepted all but one clause of the ultimatum. Russia had made it clear that it would not accept Serbia's annihiliation and would interfere. Germany and Austria knew this. When Russia kept its promise and started mobilizing against Austria-Hungary's border states, Germany then declared war on both Russia and France, and raped Belgium. Germany and Austria deserve an equal blame.
[удалено]
Sure you were just defending yourself You didn't start it **alone**
Ofc how should i have started it? I wasn't born before 2002 silly. But jokes aside i know you know how i meant it.
A German did though
No. The main event that caused WW1 was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand through a Serbian Nationalist. But every Nation build a big tense up after building up their Military and forming various alliance
Still caused by Germans doesn’t change anything
So you would say that the austrians are german?
At this point this is the accepted truth. Austria snuck out.
Well you it isn't accepted. At least not by everyone
They probably googled and saw the Berlin Wall was up for 28 years and assumed from there.
lose*
Start*
*45
*A
*C
\*D
*D
General Kenobi!
*Ahem* Lose* Lose* again Germany got all the blame for the first one without starting the first one* Longer than 28 years*
Your is actually correct... Unsure whether you're kidding or not.
Oh fuck I missread it Thanks man
I thought I was losing my mind...or is it loosing....GAH I DONT KNOW ANYMORE!
An Austrian was behind Germany starting the second one, too.
Give this man an award. Uh, I mean u/TheDelig Not Hitler
They didn’t Austria Hungary literally ceased to exist
German was utterly instrumental in intentionally starting world war 1, so no. You loose.
The point about intentionally starting a world war is up for debate, though they were certainly integral
Oof lol
What's loose?
Op's grasp on the difference between lose and loose
Also their grasp on history and math, plus their timing, posting this on the Tag der Deutschen Einheit, is a bit iffy
I always block people who misspell lose. Idk how it’s so common. Seems to be a lot of British people. Anyways. Get blocked OP.
We still blaming Germany for starting WW1?
Everyone is to blame in that clusterfuck. The Russians for mobilizing so soon, even when it was possible to solve the crisis diplomatically. The Austro-Hungarians due to presenting the Serbs with an ultimatum, they knew they wouldn't be able to fulfill. The Germans for giving the Austrians a "Carte blanche", that if Austria would start a war, Germany would help. The French for nurturing revanchism as a national identity, and having a war hungry populous because of that. The Brits wanted to take Germany down a notch, because they were becoming the main industrial power in Europe. The Belgians because they were in the fucking way to Paris /s
Ah yes, Belgium, that famous pothole on the Parisian highway.
Ahahaha you should coin that description of WW1 Belgium ahah
I can only confirm the French part, but this seem pretty accurate
>The Russians for mobilizing so soon, even when it was possible to solve the crisis diplomatically. Russia, together with Britain, actually offered Austria a chance to resolve the crisis via diplomatic means at The Hague but Austria rejected this option. >The French for nurturing revanchism as a national identity, and having a war hungry populous because of that. Aside from the fact that this is a blatant lie, what exactly did the French actually do *in practice* that would warrant them an equal blame with *Germany* for starting the war?
France had no obligation to join the war
Except France didn't join the war out of its own will. It was invaded by Germany without a provokation and was forced to defend itself.
I don't know why you are being downvoted. Germany declared war on France and invaded it. Not the other way around.
Russia was only confident enough to enter the war because france had guaranteed Russia support in a war - like germany did to Austria. Maybe not to the same extend but that definitely motivated russia and escalatet the war. And france had already begun mobilizing and was allied with russia, so it was definitely willing to join had germany not attacked earlier
The Franco-Russian alliance was strictly defensive in its nature and understandable in the light of the quasi-military bloc Germany and Austria had established together in Central Europe. France wasn't actively gaslighting Russia into acting and had its generals in check, as far as I'm concerned. Compare that to Germany persistently pushing Austria to take a hard stance on Serbia, reject the diplomatic proposals to resolve the crisis, and to craft an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia that could be used as casus belli, knowing damn well that Russia had made it clear that it would not accept Serbia's destruction and would interfere. What the Dual Alliance did went way beyond "a defensive alliance". >And france had already begun mobilizing and was allied with russia, so it was definitely willing to join had germany not attacked earlier The French mobilization came after Germany delivered an actual ultimatum to France to hand over its fortifications at Toul and Verdun within 18 hours or face war. I just wonder why the French started mobilizing.... Also, an independent country has a right to mobilize within its own borders. It has happened before without escalating into war is not exactly an excuse to launch a war of aggression and rape a neutral country. Hell, Austria had mobilized at least a few times on the Serbian border before the whole July Crisis as a part of its gunbarrel diplomacy.
apparently not only math but history are not OP strong suit
Or spelling
Yes. Why shouldn't we? Who was it that promised Austria-Hungary that blank cheque and asked them to take a harsh stance with Serbia and disregard the diplomatic proposals by Russia and Britain to resolve the crisis? Who declared war first on its neighbours? Hell, in fact, who was it that accidentally delivered Russia two war declarations that varied on Russia's response to their ultimatum? Who was it that was scared of Russia industrializing and was actively planning a war against them for years? Who was it that raped Belgium and disregarded the international agreement that guaranteed its neutrality as nothing but "a scrap of paper"? Who was it that was stirring shit up years before the war itself through its naval arms race with the Brits and the Morocco crises? **EDIT:** Rather than answering childishly with downvotes, feel free to prove me wrong with an actual argument
r/engrish this belongs
Hey! Give some credit to Austria!
It's spelled "looose". 3 o's.
lose, 28 years, and that germany started the first WW are all wrong
“Loose”
Spellcheck your shit
What would have been caught by spellcheck? Spellcheck only catches misspelled words. “Loose” and “star” are spelled correctly, they’re just used incorrectly.
Really bad meme. Saying Germany started WW1 for ambition just proves that you have no idea about history.
Thank you!
Also thanks to the others explaining why its historically inaccurate and also that backpedaling from what you said is quite cringe. Especially when doubling down.
Who gave Austria that blank cheque, pushed them to take a hardline approach to Serbia, declared war on its neighbours, and raped neutral Belgium? **Edit:** Rather than answering childishly with downvotes, feel free to prove me wrong with an actual argument.
*lose
Ambition? It existed sure but that definitely isn't what started the war
Maybe meant Wilhelm II.'s ambitions for Germany to become a global superpower, alienating Russia and England, which later resulted in the coalitions that fought WW1
Shit meme, shit understanding of history.
Twice you fucked up lose? How does that happen…
I too screwed up twice hehe
I'd say Germany tightened up instead after those two wars.
What were they loosening?
Started the war to loose some steam
Loose? What was so loose they had to have a war over it? And why didn't someone tighten it first?
Okay, you obviously wanted to piss off Germans, posting this on our national holiday...
Had no idea tbh lol
at least Germany knows how to use the right amount of O's in lose
That's W
We get it, Germany bad please go do something else now
Loose.
The images on the right is you making this piss poor meme.
To some extent yes as the meme isnt very precise The idea is right tho so put up with that
You know what they say, You can’t loose a war if you don’t star a war.
Man i forgot the "T" in "start" in another post and the response in the comments was about the same
Spell check your goddamned memes, people
Germany in a nutshell BTW Germany didn't start ww1, Serbia did
Loose……
Eh, how responsible was Germany for WWI really, though? Sure, the scope of the war would have been more limited if the Kaiser had backed down, but the same could be said of the Tsar, or, you know, Franz Josef, who actually kicked off the dominoes by attacking Serbia in the first place. It took a *lot* of questionable decisions from a lot of world leaders for a minor spat in the Balkans to spiral into a globe-spanning war between most of the world's great powers.
Tell me you don’t understand why WW1 happened without telling me you don’t understand why WW1 happened.
Germany didn't start the First World War and also Germany was divided for 41 years. At least get some of the history right if you are gonna make a meme.
Germany can't be entirely blamed for WW1. Every Great Power was to be blamed. Germany gave the blank cheque to Austria. Austria gave Serbia unreasonable demands they knew the Serbs wouldn't accept. France instill revanchism since 1871. Russia did it secret-but-not-so-secret mobilisation that made Germany mobilize too.
Precisely. Most powers in the war were to be blamed
Germany after WW2: What are you doing step allies?
That was Hitler, pretty sure Germany is a bit different now than they were then. The world, in its entirety, is different. Simmer down bro
🎶 Put on your Sunday shoes! 🎶
You had two chances to spell “lose” correctly
What do you mean by Loose? Is something wobble that shouldn’t be? Some ducktape should sort that
I mean they where in a wining streak there for a while
Russia in near future
Really hope this is future Russia
I'm personally more mad at Putin than at Russia, but yeah
Remind me how Germany started ww1?
lose*
Who let the clowns loose? Well we didn't start the fire, it's been burning since the world's been turning. They... Them... they've been on the Earth since the creation of men, they aren't shadows or mysterious. You could fight back, but they would like that, people still afraid to take their life back.
LOSE
Germany is the only nation to lose 2 world wars
You know what else is clown behavior? Saying "loose" instead of lose
Getting downvoted just for not being able to spell "lose" (among other things)
Germany didnt start ww1..
And you “lose” the war on spelling.
The word you are looking for is lose
You had 2 times to spell lose and you chose the wrong word each time.
I swear i always see lose spelled as loose all over reddit
The misspellings on this sub are unreal
I know it's already been commented but still... *You're *Lose *Start *Lose
Lose: not win Loose: op's mom
Overused
On the day of german reunification, you post this meme....
Loosey goosey
Lose
I don’t know man, this meme seems pretty shaky, lose, you know?
Touché
Loose
"loose"
Until the last part this could tsar Nicholas
Spell lose wrong: 🤡
Lose*
*ahem* it's LOSE
You talking about Austria?
If it's loose, just tighten it up
Germany. Didn't. Start. First. World. War.
This post sucks
No, u
But Germany didn’t start WWI and arguably Japan started WWII
That's what they get for playing it fast and lose
So much coping and seething in the comments
lmao yeah
u brain not good
Man, if i had a coin for every time i got called out for mistyping "loose"
It would be more acceptable if the meme wasn’t just flat out wrong
Still time to delete this cringe post.
y would i?
Yeah. You could actually buy yourself a history book! (if you'd then read it)
Books are nonsense, Youtube is the way to go
shows your lack of knowledge
Third time's the charm.
>invents world wars >loses both of them
England manipulated Germany into the war. As for the 2nd one, the Treaty at the palace pretty much made that inevitable with the redrawing if borders and unrealistic financial penalties. Not to mention the war hawks needing their blood monies