The axis powers were the aggressors invading their neighbours, that in itself is hugely significant - there's a massive difference between being a french soldier (fighting to stop an invader) and being a german one.
On top of that, the axis powers committed huge atrocities in places like Belgium - murdering entire villages and so on. I genuinely don't understand this "moral relativist" outlook that has been applied since - it is pretty clear to me that the axis side were the evil ones, being both the aggressors and committing the major atrocities of the war.
The Axis didn't exist in WW1, that was the Central Powers Germany, Austria and the Ottomans. You see how two of those didn't exist anymore during WW2? And the Entente, there were no Allies neither during WW1, included Japan and Italy. Go figure.
And there is nothing morally relativist about stating the fact that the "guilt question" of WW1 is very, very different from WW2. The Versaille Treaty made that answer very simple, too simple and too one sided. Understably at the time for sure, but it doesn't hold up to proper analysis.
Once the Balkan powder keg blew up, everyone declared war. Which at that time was custom, ever since people tend to just send armies right away. So whether or not you are a soldier fighting an enemy on his or your soil is an academic question, when you are officially at war.
Do no, it doesn't even work remotely for WW1. Unless of course, you oversimplify things and have your judgement clouded by WW2.
If anything Versaille was to weak and the answers not clear enough.
German/Austrian alliance were clearly the aggressors and the German/Austrian were very aggressive unleash the armies into Serbia and Belgium.
One can argue that Russia partially mobilized first (in the border region), but unlike in the German case, they were still willing to do diplomacy for a lot longer.
Britain in fact did try to use diplomacy and Germany was the power preventing any such settlement.
Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than.
I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles on going to war at WW1. Sure, the Austrian approach to the Serbian situation was just plain stupid, as was Germany backing them. Bit it was totally understandable from their point of view. After all, back then, before the trench warfare hell started, everybod still thought it would something like back during Napoleon's days and in 1870 or the Prussian-Austrian war (people tend to overlook the fact Germany and Austria were not always close allies), you send ypur army, besiege some cities, meet in an open field battle, or multiple, the winner takes what he wants and the looser, including the population, accepts the outcome for the time being. Rinse and repeat. Still war, still bad, bad far from the hellscape modern turned out to be. WW1 was a true watershed in history, one we tend to fail fully appreciate as it is overshadowed by WW2 in every aspect.
> Versaille was either to harsh or too weak, exactly what you don't want. It also was the only realistic thing back than.
No it wasn't. In fact, it took a massive amount of influence by Wilson himself to make it so. So much infect that Wilson actually was forced to promise a military alliance to France just so France would go along with it.
Many influential figures in French were very well aware that the treaty was toothless. Foch being a leader of that group was absolutely convinced that the Ruhr region would have to be taken to insure French security, and he was right.
At the same time in the US, the Republicans, who were totally shut out by Wilson also believed that the war should continue and Germany would have be totally defeated.
Wilson was the problem. Wilson first refused to be part of the alliance. Second he then essentially forced the allies to accept the armistice based on his 14 points, something that he simply couldn't actually promise with France and Britain as 'allies'. French went along with it partly because they thought the armistice would put them in a better position as Germany was blockaded.
Wilsons arrogance and his rejection of real alliance with France and Britain allowed the German to wedge themselves in between and get a favorable deal.
The Wilson instead of fully embracing a version of the League of Nations lead by the victorious powers of US, France, Britain all allied together (as the UN became) and instead based everything on a notion of equality and collective security. A concept that was purely theoretical and most political scientist then or now didn't think it made sense.
Wilson also was reluctant to put to much debt on Germany, while also firmly rejecting any debt based deals Britain proposed for collective debt forgiveness. And beyond that there was no effective vector put in place to punish Germany for not paying.
> I just don't apply modern, post WW2 moral principles
Not sure what modern principles you are talking about. I am applying real politic principles that existed then too.
> Napoleon's days
The Napoleonic wars were horrible with a huge number of deaths. But still in a single day, Napoleonic battles had huge casualties. And lots and lots of people hard realized that the advances in artillery would mean even more deaths.
What you are talking about is the short war illusion. But this is partly debunked by historians. Many people, knew that the war would be incredibly blood and likely not all that short. Even Molke the Elder said that the concept of these small wars he was winning was gone end and 'people's wars' would be the norm in the future.
There were also the examples of the Crimea War and the Russo-Japanese War and the War of 1870 also showed that it could turn into a much bigger peoples war.
Also, WW1 wasn't horrible because of trenches, but simply because modern war his horrible. Casualty rates in WW1 aren't that different from places like the Normandy in WW2. And that was evident in the Russo-Japanese War as well.
The idea that WW1 trenches were some revolutionary thing that fundamentally changed warfare isn't really correct. What was 'revolutionary' about WW1 was the scale and the resources involved.
Sorry, I just odn't understand how this can be morally relativist.
- Germany declared war on Russia - and France. Not the other way around
- Germany invaded neutral Belgium and committed atrocity after atrocity there to international outrage - which you seemed to ignore as a factor?
- France and the UK fought almost the entire war in france defending france from invasion. When Germany finally gave up on invading france the war ended.
It really seems pretty clear cut. The "both sides are as bad as each other" argument doesn't stand up at all?
Presumably, you also think that Ukraine and Russia are equally culpable.. despite that one side is clearly the aggressor and badly behaved actor that initiated the war. And it is a good parallel - if it were not for fear of nuclear annihilation that conflict could easily have escalated by now to include western powers more directly - similar to how WWI did. That doesn't mean "both sides are equally culpable, there's not bad side".
And yes with the benefit of hindsight Versailles was counterproductive, but that was later - we're talking about the war itself not the aftermath. Versailles shows that France and Britain thought Germany was responsible for the war and the "bad" side pretty strongly.
I have no idea why you come to the conclussion I think Ukraine is guilty... If anything, I think Russia didn't do anything different than the US and NATO did since the war on terror started.
Once war is decleared so, and given the historical lack of formal declarations I refuse to take the timing of those as abreal factor in judging guilt, it doesn't really matter if you prefer offense or defense. And I never did, and never will, excuse, compare or relativise war crimes. And yes, no doubt when it comes to crimes against civilians the Central Powers were much worse than the Entente.
My point being, the guilt question was made too simple at Versaille. Which I understand. If the war wouldn't have been as long and as devastating, those terms might have been different. We tend to apply the crystal clear question of guilt from WW2 on WW1. That is a fallacy so, understandable to a degree since the belligerents where very, very similar, as were the battlefields in Europe (and sure, lets just ignore the Pacific Theatre of WW2 in this context), and WW2 is much more present in collective memory. Fact is so, WW1 happened before, had completely different basis and context, socially, technologically, militarilly and politically.
And of course France and Britain thought the way they did, why wouldn't they?
Versaille had flaws, serious ones. As one French General put it, it wasn't a peace treaty but rather a cease fire for the next 20 years (he nailed it, didn't he?). Any stronger measures so, e.g. post-WW2 style occupation of Germany, was out of the question so. France tried in Saarland, and failed. Heck, the Entente settles for Versaille instead of pushing into Germany at the end of WW1. And they had their reasons for that.
TLDR: WW1 was bound happen no matter, tensions were too high across Europe. The question of guilt is far from easy, and doesn't equate moral superiority of either side. As history shows, the whole thing blew up in the Balkans, and Germany and Austria just happen to have "started" WW1. Also, the timing of declarations of war is utterly pointless in deciding guilt.
All I am taking issue with is this belief hat "both sides are as bad as each other" and "it just happens that Germany started it but really guilt is equal".
I've stated facts - that in our reality, Germany did primarily start the war, Not Britain or France. It was a war of aggression and attempted conquest by Germany, and a war of defense and survival for France. That's reality and that has a huge input into the "was there a right side and a wrong side" question - exactly the same as Ukraine today, which is why I brought it up. I just don't see how you can get from this to "they were both as bad as each other".
It is not the case that in some alternate reality the war could have easily been started by France or Britain. First, there's a reason why France built the Maginot line and Germany didn't bother with building one - because everybody expected that Germany would be the aggressor. Britain would have no reason to mount such an aggressive war on continental Europe and France would have been too weak. So I doubt this counterfactual would ever have happened.
Secondly, imagine it all happened again today. That Germany invaded France. Surely France would undertake the same actions (ie defend itself) and I would expect that the UK and US would be allies seeing as it is being attacked by a destabilising aggressive power.
Britain and France were morally correct and the great war was a "just war" from their perspective. "Britain and France are just as guilty as germany" is just modern bunkum.
You got one fact wrong so, it was Austria-Hungary that did start the war. It was them who did everything to create a casus belli in Serbia, despite Serbia agreeing to basically all of Austria-Hungary's demands. If you need an evil party to point your finger at.
Not sure what to make of the rest of you post so, if already ignore everything about the beginning of WW1, and still come to simple, clear cut conclusions on guilt based on the Versaille treaty, written by the victors and signed by the loosers, of which only Germany was still left, whom surrendered unconditionally.
Edit: The Marginot line was built after WW1 to prepare for the ultimate round two of WW2. You seem to confuse those two conflicts to a certain degree.
The axis powers were the aggressors invading their neighbours, that in itself is hugely significant - there's a massive difference between being a french soldier (fighting to stop an invader) and being a german one.
On top of that, the axis powers committed huge atrocities in places like Belgium - murdering entire villages and so on. I genuinely don't understand this "moral relativist" outlook that has been applied since - it is pretty clear to me that the axis side were the evil ones, being both the aggressors and committing the major atrocities of the war.