Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    Actually it is talking about German plans in WW1, that is pretty obvious to anyone who can read.
    It says that their plan was to lose all their colonies ("they knew the extreme vulnerability of their African colonies, encircled by French and British territories") and then win something in Europe that they could swap for a large part of Africa ("they thought that a huge military victory on the Western Front could provide enough bargain power at the peace table for the definite achievement of the Mittelafrika scheme.").

    The basic point of the article is that Germany had been entirely unwilling to fight Britain over colonies and this Mittelafrika scheme when Germany would have been the one declaring war and that would have been the only issue at stake, but now there was a war started for other reasons they had some chance of getting more colonies at the end ("Thus it was with a certain relief that German imperialists welcomed the final outbreak of European hostilities in the summer of 1914"). None of this suggests Germany wanted to fight Britain with the principal aim being to acquire colonies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    I have posted up a few articles which back up my views from historians and even the BBC, you have posted up zilch but your opinion.
    I've expounded my opinion in great detail most of which you refuse to engage with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It says that their plan was to lose all their colonies
    I guess you reading skills are not that great and you know nothing about the actual German plans and that is why you consider actual factual German plans to be conspiracy theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I've expounded my opinion in great detail most of which you refuse to engage with.
    Your opinion, backed up with nothing but your opinion but on the other hand I have actually backed up my claims with academic articles.Anyway I see no further point going back and forth with you, you obviously are not interested in any factual evidence and academic papers which oppose you personal opinion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    I guess you reading skills are not that great and you know nothing about the actual German plans and that is why you consider actual factual German plans to be conspiracy theory.
    Here is a bigger problem with your argument: Germany didn't declare war on Britain! Britain itself chose to enter the war, and not even right away when Germany declared war on France, but specifically after German troops entered Belgium.

    If Germany's aim had been to take British colonies then their actions make no sense: why didn't they tell Austria-Hungary to pipe down and leave Serbia, so they could declare war on Britain without France and Russia intervening? Why didn't they declare war on Britain in 1913 when Britain refused to negotiate a partition of Portugese Africa? The obvious answer is that Germany did not think a war with Britain was worth it to expand its colonies; probably it also did not think it could win.

    So maybe Britain's motivation was mostly to take Germany's left-over bits of Africa. An extraordinary claim, when their value is very low. But again we have the same problem: why didn't Britain declare war on Germany in 1913, when no one else would have been involved, and Britain could have just bottled up the German fleet and never fought most of their forces? Why didn't Britain just use the war as an excuse to seize Germany's colonies and never send any assistance to France, like Japan did?

    And none of this should be surprising, because the economic value of colonies was low. They were about 10x poorer than African countries today, about 10x less populous. Even granting that Europe was also poorer, owning the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa was less useful than owning Belgium.




    And a quote of a statement from GCSE bitesize is not an academic source.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If Germany's aim had been to take British colonies .
    I have already posted an article that they wanted to take French,Belgium and Portugese colonies, can you actual read? No need to answer that as I know you cannot. Lets have a link to an academic piece that states that what I have posted is a conspiracy theory and untrue. you have a few of those right? Well post them up them otherwise all you have is your opinion. I will wait with baited breath for at least one..

    And a quote of a statement from GCSE bitesize is not an academic source..
    I linked to a few pieces written by historians, you seem to want to ignore that fact.Also obviously BBC GCSE bitesize is stating what is in actual GCSE exams so yes it is academic
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    WW1 serves as a reminder to us, never to engage in war for the sake of it. Always know who you're fighting, and what you're fighting for.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    I have already posted an article that they wanted to take French,Belgium and Portugese colonies, can you actual read?
    The article said they wanted to negotiate for them in the peace settlement if they won the war in Europe. That does not at all suggest that Germany's main motivation in fighting the war was to obtain colonies. After the war Britain took Germany's colonies in the peace settlement but it's plainly absurd to suggest that is the main reason Britain fought WWI.

    The only way Germany could avoid fighting Britain would be to make peace with France and Russia and either abandon Austria-Hungary to its fate or somehow force them to abandon all their war aims. As I said right at the start of this discussion, the train had started rolling down the hill long before the colonial powers climbed aboard. WWI was primarily a war between the land powers of Eastern Europe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The article said they wanted to negotiate for them in the peace settlement if they won the war in Europe. That does not at all suggest that Germany's main motivation in fighting the war was to obtain colonies. After the war Britain took Germany's colonies in the peace settlement but it's plainly absurd to suggest that is the main reason Britain fought WWI.

    .
    Ok its pretty obvious you are clueless of German ambitions before the war and in the war. Colonial ambition was part and parcel of Germanys war aims, Geez they even wrote it out in official documents, guess you have never read them either.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Out of interest, what would you have done differently, excluding introducing new technologies that were not known about or couldn't have been built at the time? I've done some study in this regard and I can't think what I would've done better, even with perfect hindsight. They were certainly inexperienced right at the start of the war but by 1917 they were doing most things right, and it didn't make the war any more mobile or less horrible.
    I understand that trench warfare was largely unavoidable. But waves of soldiers were constantly thrown at enemy lines, for no gain at all. I would have ordered a completely defensive attitude as the allies on the Western Front, whilst exploiting enemy weaknesses elsewhere in Europe.

    The Somme cost 200,000 soldiers lives for a territorial gain of 5 MILEs. Douglas Haig was an awful commander who should have faced trail for complete incompetence resulting in almost 2 million deaths under his command.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    Ok its pretty obvious you are clueless of German ambitions before the war and in the war. Colonial ambition was part and parcel of Germanys war aims, Geez they even wrote it out in official documents, guess you have never read them either.
    They also said they wanted to annex Belgium but I doubt that was the reason they backed Austria-Hungary over Serbia. You are conflating two very different questions: first, should a country enter a war, and second, given that a country is in a war (in this case initiated by the other party), on what terms should it make peace.

    If Germany successfully defeats France on land there is no reason not to take the colonies. France will not be in a position to refuse. But that is very different from saying Germany declared war on France for the reason of taking its colonies. Germany had a number of diplomatic and even military confrontations with Britain and France over colonies in the years before WWI and it always backed down. Why would it decide now to fight Britain and France over colonies together, while it also has to fight Russia at the same time? I suggest because they decided to fight Russia first and foremost and merely accepted the requirement to fight France as a necessary side effect. Given that France had to be defeated anyway for Germany to win the war, there's no reason not to make demands of them. It seems they did not expect Britain to enter the war at all and at no point did Germany declare war on Britain or attempt to engage Britain in the war. Again, it was merely a side-effect of their chosen plan to invade France, and generally an undesired one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    I understand that trench warfare was largely unavoidable. But waves of soldiers were constantly thrown at enemy lines, for no gain at all. I would have ordered a completely defensive attitude as the allies on the Western Front, whilst exploiting enemy weaknesses elsewhere in Europe.

    The Somme cost 200,000 soldiers lives for a territorial gain of 5 MILEs. Douglas Haig was an awful commander who should have faced trail for complete incompetence resulting in almost 2 million deaths under his command.
    Granted the territorial gains were small, but they also weren't very important. The Entente defeated Germany by destroying the fighting power of its army, not by pushing it to Berlin (or even out of France). We're faced with the fact that the way to win this war was to kill the enemy's troops at a roughly equal rate he killed yours, until one side ran out. In this context the Somme makes sense: if 200,000 British hadn't died nor would 200,000 Germans, and these men would have been able to attack somewhere else. Perhaps in Russia, where the Germans were actually able to advance quickly and inflict a lot more losses than they suffered. Russia collapsing was a disaster to the Entente and if it had happened in 1916, perhaps would have won Germany the war.

    So I think when you see the strategic dimension also, it becomes hard even to criticise the attacks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They also said they wanted to annex Belgium
    I am still waiting for your link to an academic piece that states what I said is wrong and claims it is a conspiracy theory????? Seems you do not have any such thing so we can conclude that I was actually correct being as I have backed up my claims with various links to historians work. If you ever find an academic piece to back up your claims then email me...be a very very long wait I think...endless really.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    I am still waiting for your link to an academic piece that states what I said is wrong and claims it is a conspiracy theory?????
    That's a matter of interpretation rather than fact. What would such a source add except someone else's opinion?

    Seems you do not have any such thing so we can conclude that I was actually correct being as I have backed up my claims with various links to historians work. If you ever find an academic piece to back up your claims then email me...be a very very long wait I think...endless really.
    You linked to GCSE Bitesize, a study aid for 16 year olds, which itself only made unsupported statements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That's a matter of interpretation rather than fact. What would such a source add except someone else's opinion?


    You linked to GCSE Bitesize, a study aid for 16 year olds, which itself only made unsupported statements.
    Ok so no academic link from you then to back up your claims that what I have posted is a conspiracy theory, I thought as much and btw I linked to a few articles by historians and also to Britannica but you seem to like to dwell on the BBC bitesize which also proves me right. I guess that is all you have left in the tank. Better luck next time... and be sure to come prepared.I can see you need the last word so I will leave you too it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    Ok so no academic link from you then to back up your claims that what I have posted is a conspiracy theory, I thought as much and btw I linked to a few articles by historians and also to Britannica but you seem to like to dwell on the BBC bitesize which also proves me right. I guess that is all you have left in the tank. Better luck next time... and be sure to come prepared.I can see you need the last word so I will leave you too it.
    Only claims of fact can be cited and you haven't disputed any of mine (at least, except the relative economic importance of South Africa which I actually did cite). Citing an interpretation is purposeless because the interpretation of some other author is no more or less valid than mine. If you disagree with my argument for my interpretation, you can just as well disagree with his. What you refuse to do is explain what you think is wrong with my argument.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody won that war
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lin Chung)
    Ok so no academic link from you then to back up your claims that what I have posted is a conspiracy theory, I thought as much and btw I linked to a few articles by historians and also to Britannica but you seem to like to dwell on the BBC bitesize which also proves me right. I guess that is all you have left in the tank. Better luck next time... and be sure to come prepared.I can see you need the last word so I will leave you too it.
    Why is it you never counter observatorys entire posts, you quote about 10% (never the main points) and then respond only to that. It makes you look like an idiot who cannot debate.
    You lose. You suck. You fail.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think that we should fund Commonwealth-wide events of rememberance.

    Although we can argue the morality of the war, what is certain is that millions of young men signed up because they believed that it was the right thing to do. They were willing to fight because they believed they were answering their country's call in a great hour of need.

    That should be respected if nothing else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    I understand that trench warfare was largely unavoidable. But waves of soldiers were constantly thrown at enemy lines, for no gain at all. I would have ordered a completely defensive attitude as the allies on the Western Front, whilst exploiting enemy weaknesses elsewhere in Europe.

    The Somme cost 200,000 soldiers lives for a territorial gain of 5 MILEs. Douglas Haig was an awful commander who should have faced trail for complete incompetence resulting in almost 2 million deaths under his command.
    Do you mean such weakness's as Gallipoli, Mesopotamia and the Palestine?

    or maybe east Africa, the pacific and the war at sea.

    it may come as a surprise to you but hang was worshipped by his men. It was only revisionist history in the 60s that changed that. Mainly down to Alan Clarks, although popular, but widely derided by Military historians, book Lions led by Donkeys.

    Huge mistakes were made in WW1. But lessons were learnt. No other conflict in history has seen such changes in war fighting as WW1, and those generals adapted better than most.

    It should however be remembered for the sheer scale of the losses. I've read a lot about it, but it wasn't until a recent battlefield tour that the enormity truly hit me. I think that between 2014 and 2018, every school child in the UK should be made to go. I shall most defiantly be taking my nephew there. He's 7 and the moment, but planing to take him when he's 10 or 11.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 28, 2013
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.