Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Addendum

[Smitty-48]

I think the Anglo world took the wrong side, or at least should not have been involved at all.

If the British stay out, it doesn't even amount to a world war at all, it was merely the Second Franco-Prussian War, until the British Empire threw itself in front of the French under the rubric of Belgian neutrality.

So the Germans defeat the French again? So what? The Germans were not going to stay, they simply wanted them chopped down to size so they could turn and deal with the Eurasian hordes to the East, Kaiser same as Hitler in the end.

(Thanks for answering my poorly worded questions)

So in you opinion, did Britain ultimately mostly get involved because saving face sort of thing and the notion of honor/prestige etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_vo ... tern_Front

What do you think of the significance of this WWI German General?
Was the success in the East mostly due to him than Ludendorff?

Britain coming in all comes down to domestic British politics and one man in the end, the Conservatives and the Liberals were vying for control of Westminster, Winston Churchill was the linchpin, Winston Churchill was in a coalition with the Liberals, but he wanted into the war, if Winston Churchill crossed the floor to join the Conservatives, the Liberal government would fall, so when Winston Churchill threatened to walk, the Liberals charged into the war to keep him on side and as a result keep their government.

[Okeefenokee]

I think the Anglo world took the wrong side, or at least should not have been involved at all.

If the British stay out, it doesn't even amount to a world war at all, it was merely the Second Franco-Prussian War, until the British Empire threw itself in front of the French under the rubric of Belgian neutrality.

So the Germans defeat the French again? So what? The Germans were not going to stay, they simply wanted them chopped down to size so they could turn and deal with the Eurasian hordes to the East, Kaiser same as Hitler in the end.

(Thanks for answering my poorly worded questions)

So in you opinion, did Britain ultimately mostly get involved because saving face sort of thing and the notion of honor/prestige etc.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_vo ... tern_Front

What do you think of the significance of this WWI German General?
Was the success in the East mostly due to him than Ludendorff?

They had a treaty with Belgium, and the upheld their end of it.

[Smitty-48]

That Zimmermann telegram always smelled like fake news to me.

The sinking of the Lusitania was much bigger, the Germans were desperate to break the blockade and cut the British off from North America, so in the wake of Jutland they switched to submarine warfare, but when they sunk the Lusitania, they ended up killing some of the richest people in America, big mistake, because those people controlled the press, and as soon as the Germans did that, the wealthy American media magnates all turned on them with a vengeance, and with that, American public opinion followed, the Zimmerman telegram was just icing on the cake.

[Speaker to Animals]

They were justified, though. We were using ocean liners to ship material to England.

Zimmerman telegram seems like some ridiculous statement made by a German diplomat that was later blown out of proportion.

[Speaker to Animals]

I know you can't salvage from that ship because of the risk of unexploded munitions, so..

[Smitty-48]

Of course, it was practically bait for the Germans, Wilson wanted in, Wall Street wanted in, and once the Germans took the bait and sunk the Lusitania, the Wealthy Liberal media wanted in, so it was just a matter of time then.

They were all in cahoots with the British, trying to steer the American public into the war.

[Smitty-48]

The wealthy American aristocracy wanted the British Empire for their very own, and come the stalemate on the Western Front, they smelled their opportunity for a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy take over scenario.

[Smitty-48]

They had a treaty with Belgium, and the upheld their end of it.

Didn't actually bind the British to go to war, and moreover, the treaty asserted Belgian independence from the Netherlands not Germany, and Germany was co-signatory to the treaty, when the Germans violated the treaty, the British could have easily said that it was null because the other signatories were failing to adhere to it, which is what the Liberals wanted to do, but Winston Churchill wasn't having any of that, so he dragged them in kicking and screaming.

Winston Churchill is the architect of both the First and Second Wars of British Hegemonic Succession, despite being lauded as the Greatest Prime Minister of them all, he was in fact the one who lost the Empire.

It's essentially the same war twice over, with the Germans twice over assuming the British would stay out because it was not in their interests to come in, and twice over Winston Churchill having none of it and dragging the British in by hook or by crook, and twice over the Americans coming in to protect their investment in the British Empire.

[Okeefenokee]

They had a treaty with Belgium, and the upheld their end of it.

Didn't actually bind the British to go to war, and moreover, the treaty asserted Belgian independence from the Netherlands not Germany, and Germany was co-signatory to the treaty, when the Germans violated the treaty, the British could have easily said that it was null because the other signatories were failing to adhere to it, which is what the Liberals wanted to do, but Winston Churchill wasn't having any of that, so he dragged them in kicking and screaming.

Winston Churchill is the architect of both the First and Second and Wars of British Hegemonic Succession, despite being lauded as the Greatest Prime Minister of them all, he was in fact the one who lost the Empire.

It's essentially the same war twice over, with the Germans twice over assuming the British would stay out because it was not in their interests to come in, and twice over Winston Churchill having none of it and dragging the British in by hook or by crook, and twice over the Americans coming in to protect their investment in the British Empire.

What I've read implies there was an expectation to respect and defend the neutrality of Belgium.

I don't buy that the other powers are off the hook once one reneges. The validity of the treaty was renewed several times between 1839 and 1914.

[Smitty-48]

They had a treaty with Belgium, and the upheld their end of it.

Didn't actually bind the British to go to war, and moreover, the treaty asserted Belgian independence from the Netherlands not Germany, and Germany was co-signatory to the treaty, when the Germans violated the treaty, the British could have easily said that it was null because the other signatories were failing to adhere to it, which is what the Liberals wanted to do, but Winston Churchill wasn't having any of that, so he dragged them in kicking and screaming.

Winston Churchill is the architect of both the First and Second and Wars of British Hegemonic Succession, despite being lauded as the Greatest Prime Minister of them all, he was in fact the one who lost the Empire.

It's essentially the same war twice over, with the Germans twice over assuming the British would stay out because it was not in their interests to come in, and twice over Winston Churchill having none of it and dragging the British in by hook or by crook, and twice over the Americans coming in to protect their investment in the British Empire.

What I've read implies there was an expectation to respect and defend the neutrality of Belgium.

I don't buy that the other powers are off the hook once one reneges. The validity of the treaty was renewed several times between 1839 and 1914.

As the Germans said "it's absurd that the British are going to war over this mere scrap of paper", the British broke treaties all the time, the assertion that the British had to go to war over that vaguely worded "guarantee of Belgian neutrality" is pure nonsense of the face of it, the treaty did not bind the British into a specifically military defense of Belgium, it was like NATO Article V, it said they had to do something, but it did not stipulate exactly what it was they had to do, simply sending their German co-signatories a strongly worded letter of protest was entirely within the realm of the easily done and done.

It's the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the British Empire, saying that the British were bound to go to war because "vaguely worded scrap of paper binding them to do nothing specific", is the very nonsense which lost the Empire.

The treaty did not bind the British specifically to enforce anything, it bound all five signatories equally, the Germans weren't adhering to it, the French weren't adhering to it, the British could have easily said, we protest, Germany and France have abandoned the treaty, but ultimately not our fault nor problem in the end, then just sit back with the Americans and pick at the spoils.