Why do you have so much hate for Germany that you try to shift responsibility onto them, where it does not belong?
First - I'm not doing the shifting pal. The shift has already been done. Second - I, unlike yourself, have provided evidence in the form of scholarship from reputable and well researched authors. You on the otherhand just put words in my mouth and put out baseless platitudes about German innocence and British guilt. This is
Not history.
hat German aggression took place came after Allied aggression. Militarism and glorification of imperialism in Germany?rrelevant, because the same existed in Britain, France, Russia, etc.
Yes, but German had a much more detailed and deep rooted plan for a Hegemonic position in Europe. Let me explain my argument.
By the first decade of the 20th century, a politically consolidated (an Authoritarian state with few opposition groups), Economically competitent (the marriage of Eastern landed and western commericial interests) and proud military tradition had German elites, after being pushed out of economic expansion globally, feeling encircled by competiing powers.
However, German military elites thought they could rest easy with their Schlieffen plan which delt with the scenario of a two front war. When France increased its conscript army size and Russia began construction of western railways - the German military's Schlieffen plan was seriously threatened. Time was of the essence for German planners, German political-military leaders feared economic and military encirclement was only a matter of time.
The memory of the quick easy victory in 1870 was very tempting and in the minds of German generals, if Germany was to delay 5 years, it might be too late.
The idea for a quick pre-emptive war to secure economic hegemony in Europe was widely supported among various interests in government, the military, business, universities, and expansionist minded interest groups like the Pan-German League. These interests pushed for Germany to either diplomatically or militarily achieve some sort of expansion to maintain the hitherto fantastic economic growth.
When Serbian Nationalist's shot the Archduke in August 1914, Germany knew full well that military action by A-H on Serbia would provoke a Russian response. German leaders also knew that a Austro-hungarian - Russian war would lead to the break out of a general European War. Knowing full well the consequences, German leaders pused A-H to give a hardline and unacceptable ulitimatium (Serbia accepted all but one clause - which would have sacrificed Serbian Soverignty). The German government then pledged full support for A-H (the famous blank cheque) and torpedoed British efforts for a Bilateral solution to the crisis.
So - Austria declares war. Then Russia, admittedly, makes the aggressive and clumbsy posture of full mobolization against both Germany and A-H (Russia's General staff had no plan for partial mobolization against A-H alone). Thus at this point we have a regional conflict where there is essentially even blame. Here is the point of departure and perfect opportunity for German leaders. The Schleffien plan dictated that France must be defeated first - however, at the moment, war was only threatening to break out the east. German served France with an unacceptable ultimatium - a diplomatic tool used as a pretext for war by the German government. Germany demanded that France affirm absolute neutrality in the coming German Russian war, and to show good faith, transfer soverignty of key fortresses on the Franco-German boarder.
Clearly, German officials did everything they could to ensure that the opportunity to carryout the Schleffien plan would come. A war with Russia first would not work and had to, in the short run, force France's hand.
The only act I can see Germany possibly might be at fault for was invading neutral Belgium to reach France, but the British still had the choice of not starting an unprovoked war of aggression that didn't concern them. The burden lies on the Brits.
Britain and Germany (Prussia) were both signatories in the 1839 committment to Belgian Neutrality. Thus, from a Legal stand point, Britain's declaration of war was in fact, legal, since Germany violated Belgian neutrality and ignoring the treaty as 'just a peice of paper'.
However, your assessment, Blaming the British for declaring war on Germany after GERMANY invaded Belgium and GERMANY violated the treaty is incorrect. For hundreds of years, Great Britain has never allowed a single power to peacefully control all the channel ports - its commercial and political survival depends on it. Thus, when Germany threatened to knock France out of the channel area Britain was bound to declare war out of its own interests - to suppose otherwise would be willfully blind.
I never heard Britain or France take responsibility for forcing collective punishment upon innocent Germans and creating a sequence of events that led to World War II.
This is because the causes of the Second World War are more indemic and complicated that simply Versailles. To pin it a vindictive France is to ignore the systematic economic, political, and social weaknesses created in the post-world war one era. Verrsailles was a part of it, but explaining the second world war is a whole lot more complex than the ahistorical tripe you come up with.
Just one in many crimes of aggression the Allied forces committed out of paranoia and a hatred for German society.
As I'm sure a victorious Germany would have been France's best friend right?
Indemnities, such as the fat one Prussia made France pay in 1870 were common among all European powers.
At least we had a clear reason; Manifest Destiny.
A clear reason? So your clear reason for forced removal and killings of Native American's was that God ordained that the land was the property of white Americans? I mean, I'm a realist and all but that's crap. At least the British had a legalistic and security pretext for going to war in WW1. Many American wars can hardly claim the same thing.